.(/ 


Jld*~:& 


I  theological  seminary.  I 

Frincetcn,  N.  J. 


|         Case,    Division... -•  | 

Shelf,    Section f- 

6         Bool,   M  I 


<"  r 


tW\A  A>   • 


* 


A 

CONCISE  VIEW 


OF 


THE  PRINCIPAL  POINTS  OF  CONTROVERSY 


BETWEEN  THE 


PROTESTANT  AND  ROMAN 
CHURCHES: 


CONTAINING, 

I.  A  Letter  to  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  City  of  Worcester  in  England. 
II.  A  Reply  to  the  above  Address,  by  the  late  Archbishop  Carroll. 

III.  An  Answer  to  the  late  Archbishop  Carroll's  Reply. 

IV.  A  Short  Answer  to  the  Appendix  to  The  Catholic  Question,  decided  in  New- 

York  in  1813. 
V.  A  few  Short  Remarks  on  Dr.  O'Gallagher's  Reply  to  the  above  Answer. 


BY  THE  REV.  C.  H.  WHARTON,  D.  D. 

RECTOR  OF  ST.  MARY'S  CHURCH,   BCRT.ITSGTON,  (n.  J.)  AND  MEMBER  OE  THE 
PHILOSOPHICAL  SOCIETY  OK  PHILADELPHIA,. 


NEW-YORK  : 

PUBLISHED  BY  DAVID  LONGWORTH,  NO.   1  1    PARK, 
Clayton  &  Kingsland,  Printers. 

1817. 


PREFACE. 


The  two  first  and  the  third  of  the  tracts  here  published,  have 
for  some  years  past  been  frequently  called  for,  and  the  author 
has  been  repeatedly  solicited  to  allow  a  new  edition  of  them. 
Motives  of  delicacy  only,  have  prevented  his  compliance.  He 
was  unwilling  to  renew  any  uneasy  feelings  in  the  breast  of  the 
venerable  writer  of  the  "  Address  to  the  Roman  Catholics  in 
the  United  States  of  America,"  for  whom,  notwithstanding  ma- 
ny illiberal  insinuations  in  this  address,  he  never  ceased  to 
entertain  sincere  esteem  and  attachment.  By  the  decease  of 
Archbishop  Carroll,  every  disinclination  and  obstacle  to  the 
republication  of  these  tracts,  is  removed.  They  who  may 
now  enter  the  lists  against  them,  will  not  be  able  to  advance 
any  thing  unnoticed  by  him,  and  therefore  no  dread  is  enter- 
tained of  their  being  refuted.  If  it  should  be  said,  that  pub- 
lications of  this  nature  are  only  calculated  to  nourish  the  acri- 
monious spirit  of  controversy,  which  Christian  charity  should 
rather  strive  to  suppress,  let  the  reader  turn  to  "  the  Appen- 
dix to  the  Catholic  Question,"  published  at  New-York  in 
1813,  and  candidly  determine  whether  such  a  wanton  at- 
tack upon  the  Protestant  faith,  did  not  call  for  more  severe 
animadversion  than  that  which  it  received. 

A  pamphlet  in  support  of  this  publication,  and  written  by 
a  Dr.  O'Gallagher,  was  put  into  my  hands  lasi  fall.  With 
the  exception  of  some  coarse  abuse,  and  an  arrogant  affec- 
tation of  theological  superiority,  it  contains  little  or  nothing, 
which  was  not  refuted  in  the  Short  Answer  to  the  Appendix. 
My  friends:  however,  advised  me  to  notice  it,  and  1  have 
done  so  accordingly.  The  malignity  of  the  Doctor's 
remarks,  meets  the  pity  of  the  writer  of  these  sheets,  and  is 
freely  forgive.!  ;  although,  if  unrestrained,  he  has  no  doubt, 
that,  by  some  fiery  bigots,  it  would  be  extended  to  personal 
per :;t  cution.  As  an  evidence,  that  such  feelings  exist,  he 
will  take  the  liberty  of  presenting  the  reader  with  the  copy 
of  a  lrttei  which  he  lately  received  from  a  Romipb  Priest, 
together  with  his  reply  to  it.  The  letter  was  written  in 
French,  and  is  laterally  translated.  The  original  is  w  '  p. 
printer.     The  spirit  which  dictated  it,  is,  I  hope,  confined 


IV  1'REF.U  E. 


only  to  few  of  that  communion  ;  but,  however  limited  it  may 
be,  it  is  fraught  with  such  malignant  and  mischievous  materi- 
als, that  no  attempt  to  keep  it  under,  can  be  unseasonable  or 
superfluous.  It  h  hoped  that  the  present  publication  may 
contribute  something  to  this  effect. 


THE    LETTER.", 

Baltimore,  30th  March,  1816, 


SIR, 


I  wrote  to  you  about  two  years  ago.*  With  equal  sim- 
plicity I  will  write  to  you  again — solely  for  the  good  of  your 
soul,  and  for  the  glory  of  God  and  his  church.  I  never 
mentioned  the  first  letter  to  any  person,  nor  shall  I  mention 
this.  The  same  secrecy  I  have  a  right  to  exact  from  you, 
Until  it  shall  be  violated  by  some  infidelity  on  my  part.  You 
are  very  old.  Mr.  Carroll,  your  friend,  has  died  first.  He 
has  borne  before  God  the  testimony  of  the  scandal,  which 
your  renunciation  of  his  church,  and  of  your  sacred  priest- 
hood, has  occasioned  in  his  diocess ;  of  the  scandal  of  wri- 
tings so  outrageous,  from  your  apology,  down  to  that  Theo- 
logical Magazine  in  the  first  number  of  which,  you  begin  by 
venting  such  strange  effusions  of  hatred  against  your  Mother, 
the  church ;  saying,  for  instance,  in  the  eulogium  on  Fenelon, 
that  ignorance  only  can  embrace,  and  cruelty  only  propagate 
her  doctrine — thus  violently  insulting  those  of  your  former 
friends,  whom  not  being  able  to  pronounce  either  ignorant  or 
cruel,  it  remained  only  to  consider  as  hypocrites  ;  (Mr.  Gar- 
roll  at  their  head)  asserting  again,  that  charity  is  incompati- 
ble with  the  Catholic  faith ;  that  Fenelon,  like  Fra.  Paulo, 
was  nothing  more  than  a  Protestant  in  disguise :  He,  who 
wrote  so  many  controversial  treatises  against/he  Protestants, 
and  the  Jansenists ;  the  Missionary  of  Poitou,  which  con- 
tinued Catholic  during  the  French  revolution  ;  the  confessor, 
for  ten  years,  of  the  new  female  converts ;  the  friend  of  the 
Jesuits  and  of  St.  Sulpice,  societies  so  decidedly  Catholic ; 
nay,  further,  the  antagonist  of  the  liberties  of  the  Gallican 
church,  and  even  jealously  attached  to  what  is  called,  in 
France,  the  ultramountain,  or  Italian  system.  Alas  !  was  it 
reserved  to  you  to  make  Fenelon  also  a  hypocrite,  than  whom 
no  man  ever  enjoyed  a  higher  reputation  for  sincerity  ?  Ra- 
ther read,  O  wretched  Priest !  his  beautiful  treatise  upon  the 
ministerial  functions,  or  his  eight  letters  to  a  Protestant,  and 
*  This  letter  was  equally  insolent,  and  was  burnt  without  being  answered. 


PREFACE.  V 

the  rational  retractation  which  they  occasioned.  How  dare 
you ;  how  dare  you,  I  say,  go  to  death  and  to  judgment  in 
your  present  melancholy  situation  ?  What  account  will  you 
have  to  render  to  Jesus  Christ,  of  your  conduct  against  his 
church  ?  You  are  imposed  upon  by  the  caresses  of  the  sect 
you  have  embraced.  I  have  seen  with  grief,  on  your  account, 
their  efforts  to  entangle  you  to  the  last,  by  proposing  you  as. 
Bishop  of  New-Jersey.  A  Bishop,  indeed !  A  Bishop,  on 
whose  account  ?  A  Bishop !  O  miserable  Priest,  a  priest  at 
present  without  faith,  without  sacrifice.  I  say,  without  even 
faith;  for  among  all  the  Protestant  sects,  what  choice  can 
be  made,  one  opinion  being  as  good  as  another,  whether  it  be 
Luther's,  or  Calvin's,  Fox's,  Wesley's,  Socinus's,  Priestley's, 
or  any  other  non-descript  society. 

At  Mr.  Carroll's  death,  I  was  struck  with  the  desire  of 
writing  to  you :  at  present  this  desire  occurs  very  forcibly, 
and  I  yield  to  it  with  simplicity,  nay,  with  excessive  emotion. 
Return  to  the  fatal  moment  of  your  separation.  Remember 
poor  Lucas  ;*  imitate  his  repentance  ;  abandon  the  fatal  cou- 
rage to  die  in  your  apostacy,  and  plunge  into  despair.  Re- 
flect, old  man,  still  respectable  for  your  age,  and  the  excess 
of  your  wretchedness,  reflect  on  the  good  which  your  return 
would  yet  do,  and  the  true  consolation  it  would  impart  to 
yourself.  I  do  not  expect  that  you  will  answer  me,  but  pon- 
der before  God,  what  you  had  best  do.  Do  not  die  in  this 
manner — rather  follow  to  the  other  world  your  favourite 
Fcnelon,  than  the  apostate  Luther.  A  spirit  of  indifference, 
the  dissenters,  the  Bible  Societies,  are  hastening  on  the  ruin 
of  the  establishment  of  Henry  VIII.,  Elizabeth,  and  Edward; 
and  Unitarianism,  new  commentaries,  liberality,  &c.  threaten 
Christianity  itself.  Membership  with  the  only  church  in  pos- 
session of  the  promises,  is  the  duty  of  every  enlightened  and 
sincere  Christian  :  how  much  more  so  of  the  miserable  Priest 
who  has  had  the  misfortune  to  betray  his  divine  priesthood. 
Does  not  an  edifying  return  become  urgent  ?  Ah,  do  not  be 
so  dreadfully  courageous,  as  thus  to  die  in  your  apostacy.  In 
thinking  myself  bound  to  give  you  my  name,  I  am  not  afraid 
of  dishonouring  it.  My  intention  is  pure,  and  I  disavow 
any  unnecessary  affront. 

A.  BRUTE,  (I  believe,) 

President  of  St.  Mary's  College. 
The  Rev.  Mr.  Wharton,  Burlington,  New-Jersey. 

*  Of  this  person  I  know  but  little.     I  am  glad,  however,  to  find,  that  he 
died  a  penitent  for  his  immoralities.     I  never  heard  that  he  honame  a  Protest 
ant.     Ed, 


yi  PREFACE. 

ANSWER. 

Burlington,  April  20th,  181G. 

SIR, 

In  answering  yours  of  the  30th  ult.  I  will  begin  by  send- 
ing you  a  parody  of  a  celebrated  letter  written  by  the  great 
Dr.  Samuel  Johnson,  to  Mr.  James  Macpherson,  whom  he 
considered  as  a  literary  impostor,  and  by  whom  he  was 
threatened  with  a  personal  assault.* 

"  I  received  your  foolish  and  impertinent  letter.  Any  ar- 
guments against  my  religious  opinions,  I  shall  do  my  best  to 
repel ;  and  what  I  cannot  do  for  myself  against  bigoted 
abuse,  my  friends  will  do  for  me.  I  hope  I  shall  never  be 
deterred  from  abandoning  what  I  think  an  error,  by  the  de- 
nunciations of  a  fanatic.  What  would  you  have  me  retract  ? 
I  thought  your  church  unscriptural  in  many  points,  and  I 
think  so  still.  For  this  opinion  I  have  given  my  reasons  to 
the  public,  which  I  dare  you  to  refute.  Your  unprovoked 
resentment  I  defy — your  pity  I  reject.  To  judge  from  your 
letter,  your  abilities  are  not  formidable ;  and  1  am  not  suffi- 
ciently acquainted  with  your  erudition,  to  pay  regard  to  what 
you  can  say,  but  what  you  can  prove.  You  may  show  this 
to  whom  you  please,  or  print  it,  if  you  will." 

This  parody  will  probably  appear  uncourteous  language 
to  the  President  of  a  College  ;  but  when  a  president  throws 
off  the  gentleman,  and  condescends  to  dabble  in  the  dregs  of 
bigotry,  he  has  no  right  to  expect  any  other.  The  feelings 
which  your  letter  excited,  would  not  have  partaken  of  any 
thing  like  resentment,  had  you  not  mentioned  my  venerable 
relative  and  former  friend,  Archbishop  Carroll,  as  counte- 
nancing your  denunciations  and  abuse.  I  knew  him  well. 
I  loved  him  during  his  lifetime,  and  shall  revere  him  during 
my  own.  Were  he  still  among  us,  I  would  have  trans- 
mitted your  letter  to  him ;  where,  I  am  confident,  it  would 
have  met  the  reception  it  deserves.  He  was  too  well 
acquainted  with  the  sacred  rights  of  conscience,  and  the 
anomalies  of  the  human  mind,  to  condemn  the  exercise  of 
the  first,  or  wish  to  regulate  the  latter  by  the  standard  of  his 
own  opinions  ;  much  less  would  he  have  presumed  to  consign 
them  both  to  perdition.  Sir,  we  Americans  are  better  taught 
in  these  matters  ;  and  it  must  stir  our  bile  to  hear  arrogant 
foreigners,  presuming  to  vilify  the  most  numerous  classes  of 
Christians  in  our  country ;  to  find  them,  when  scarcely  es- 

*  See  Boswell's  Life  of  Johnson,  vol.  ii.  p.  133.  Bostoaedit, 


PREFACE.  VH 

caped  from  the  fury  of  Jacobinism,  breathing  among  their 
kind  receivers  the  spirit  of  Inquisitors.  On  every  occasion, 
both  in  public  and  private,  I  have  uniformly  treated  my  for- 
mer connexions  with  respect.  In  abandoning  some  of  their 
doctrines,  I  still  entertained  for  their  persons  and  virtues 
the  most  tender  attachment,  and  have  never,  for  a  moment, 
harboured  the  presumption  of  passing  condemnation  on  them 
for  opinions,  which  to  profess  myself,  would  be  a  sinful  pre- 
varication. If  you  had  understood  our  language,  you  could 
not  have  mistaken  what  is  said  of  Fenelon  in  the  Theological 
Magazine,  It  is  merely  asserted,  that  although  a  member  of 
the  Roman  church,  he  was,  in  some  sense,  a  Protestant ; 
and,  was  not  this  the  case,  when  he  protested  against  propa- 
gating religion  by  the  sword,  a  practice  zealously  advocated 
by  Bossuet,  and  most  Roman  Catholic  divines,  as  emanating 
from  religious  intolerance,  and  a  holy  incompatibility,  as 
they  call  it,  with  any  other  Christian  societies — a  practical 
doctrine,  involving  the  very  essence  of  heretical  pravity,  and 
calling  loudly  for  the  anathemas  of  an  infallible  church,  un- 
less, indeed,  she  regard  practical  errors,  most  destructive  to 
society,  beneath  her  notice,  when  compared  with  speculative 
tenets,  which  seem  to  shock  the  dictates  of  reason,  and  in- 
validate the  evidence  of  all  our  senses.  These  true  princi- 
ples of  the  church  of  Rome,  viz.  intolerance  and  persecution, 
which  she  has  always  professed,  and  frequently  realized,  when 
possessing  civil  power,  these  principles,  I  repeat,  "  cruelly 
alone  can  disseminate,  and  ignorance  alone  receive  ;"*  and 
should  such  principles  be  maintained  by  any  other  church,which 
never  can  be  proved,  all  we  can  say,  is,  that  they  merit  the  same 
unqualified  abhorrence.  Of  the  sincerity  of  the  amiable  and 
saintly  Fenelon ;  of  your  late  learned  and  venerable  Arch- 
bishop, and  of  innumerable  other  worthies  of  your  commu- 
nion, I  never  entertained  a  doubt.  It  is  the  duty  of  all  real 
Christians,  to  "judge  not  before  the  time,  lest  they  be  judg- 
ed." Who,  then,  art  thou,  Mr.  President,  "  that  judgest 
another  man's  servant,"  or  rather  a  man  devoted  to  the  service 
of  Christ  ?  Abandon  this  crying  sin,  my  good  sir.  But  if  you 
deem  it  an  essential  mark  of  your  church  to  anathematize 
all,  who  dissent  from  her  tenets,  permit  me,  in  return  for  your 
menacing  entreaties,  (nay,  I  am  willing  to  suppose,  your  cha- 
ritable exhortations)  to  abandon  my  apostacy.  to  beseech  you 
£o  ponder  in  the  presence  of  God,  and  with  a  free  and  un- 
ihackled  mind,  the  reasons  of  Protestants  for  their  separating 

+  See  Theol.  Mag.  No.  1,  p.  22. 


viii  PREFACE. 


from  your  church,  and  then,  perhaps,  you  may  be  induced, 
by  a  similar  act  of  apostacy,  "  to  come  out  of  her,  lest  you 
partake  of  those  plagues,"  which  you  presume  to  pronounce 
so  confidently  against  me.  At  any  rate,  you  would  oblige  me 
by  withholding  die  honour  of  any  more  of  your  letters,  the 
disposal  of  which  you  can  have  no  right  to  control,  as  you 
seem  to  imagine.  When  received,  they  become  my  proper- 
ty ;  but  it  is  a  property  which  I  do  not  covet.  Such  letters 
stir  up  angry  feelings,  which  I  wish  to  forget,  and  they  pick 
my  pocket  without  an  adequate  consideration.  They  may, 
moreover,  and  probably  will  be  mentioned,  in  a  manner  that 
may  prevent  Protestant  parents,  from  exposing  their  children 
to  instructors  of  this  description. 

With  respect  to  your  kind  cautions  against  the  caresses  of 
my  new  friends,  as  you  are  pleased  to  style  them,  and  their 
exertions  to  raise  me  to  the  Episcopate  of  New-Jersey,  they 
are  entirely  superfluous  ;  as  I  was  never  a  candidate  for  that 
sacred  and  responsible  office ;  and  as  to  your  sneers  against 
Bible  Societies,  they  may  be  entitled  to  some  notice,  when 
the  declaration  of  the  Apostle  shall  become  obsolete,  that 
"  the  Scriptures  are  able  to  make  us  wise  unto  salvation, 
through  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  ^  all  Scripture  being 
given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  being  profitable  for  doctrine, 
for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness; 
that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  un- 
to all  good  works."  (2  Tim.  iii.  15, 16,  17.)  In  the  mean  time, 
if  the  dissemination  of  scriptural  knowledge  should  overthrow 
any  Protestant  churches,  either  in  Europe  or  America,  the 
sooner  they  fall  the  better.  It  might,  however,  be  probably 
more  wise  to  transfer  your  idle  forebodings,  respecting  other 
churches,  to  well-founded  apprehensions  for  your  own,  ari- 
sing from  such  a  circumstance.  At  any  rate,  if,  as  you  flat- 
ter yourself,  Bible  Societies  are  calculated  to  destroy  the 
church  of  England,  and  her  sister  church  in  America,  it 
evidently  becomes  your  bounden  duty  to  support  them.  You 
tell  me,  in  finishing  your  letter,  that  you  give  me  your  name 
without  fear  of  exposing  it.  Sorry  I  am,  that  neither  my 
friends,  nor  myself,  are  able  to  decypher  it.  Turned  every 
way,  it  remains  unknown  to  us  all.  Mine  is  that  of  your 
sincere  well-wisher, 

CHARLES  HENRY  WHARTON,  D.  D. 

and  Presbyter  of  the  Apostolical  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  U.  S.  of  America, 


LETTER 


TO 


THE    ROMAN    CATHOLICS 


OF  THE 


CITY    OF    WORCESTER, 


FROM 


THE    LATE    CHAPLAIN    OF    THAT    SOCIETY, 

Mr.  C.  H.  WHARTON, 

STATING  THE  MOTIVES  WHICH   INDUCED    HIM    TO    RELINQUISH  THEIR  COM- 
MUNION, AND  BECOME  A  MEMBER  OF  THE  PROTESTANT  CHURCH. 


"  Give  me  understanding,  O  Lord,  and  I  shall  keep  thy  law  :  Yea,  I  shall  observe  it  with  ray  whole 
heart."    Psalm  cxviii.  34. 

"  Make  me  to,  go  in  the  path  of  thy  commandments  ;  for  therein  do  I  delight."    Verse  35. 

"  Any  private  man,  who  truly  believes  the  Scripture,  and  seriously  endeavours  to  know  the  will  of 
God,  and  to  do  it,  is  as  secure  as  the  visible  Cnurch,  more  secure  than  your  the  Roman  Church, 
from  the  danger  of  erring  in  fundamentals:  for  it  is  impossible  that  any  man  so  qualified  should  fall 
into  any  error  which  to  him  will  prove  damnable.  For  God  requires  no  more  of  any  man  to  his  salva- 
tion, but  his  true  endeavour  to  be  saved.  Lastly,  abiding  in  your  churches  Communion  is  so  far  from 
securing  me  or  any  man  from  damnable  error,  that  if  I  should  abide  in  it,  I  a.r.  certain  I  could  not  be 
saved.  For  abide  in  it  I  cannot,  without  professing  to  believe  your  entire  doctrine  true :  profess  ilns 
I  cannot,  but  I  must  lie  perpetually,  and  exulcerate  my  conscience.  And  though  your  errors  were 
not  in  themselves  damnable,  yet  to  resist  the  known  ruth,  and  to  continue  in  the  profession  of  known 
errors  and  falsehood,  is  certainly  a  capital  sin,  and  of  great  affinity  with  the  sin  which  shall  never  be 
forgiven.— Chillingworth's  Religion  of  Protestants  a  safe  way  to  Salvation,  4th  Edition,  p.  215." 


NEW-YORK  : 

REPUBLISHED  BY  DAVID  LONGWORTH,  NO.   11   PARK, 
Clayton  &  Kingsland,  Printers. 

1817. 


LETTER 


THE  ROMAN  CATHOLICS 


OF    THE 


CITY  OF  WORCESTER. 


At  a  period  of  life,  when  discernment  should  be 
ripe,  when  passions  should  be  calm,  and  principles 
settled,  if  a  man  relinquish  the  opinions  of  his  youth  ; 
if  he  break  through  the  impressions  of  early  educa- 
tion, and  the  habits  of  thinking  with  which  he  has 
been  long  familiar  ;  if  he  abandon  connexions, 
which  he  has  cherished  from  his  infancy,  to  throw 
himself  among  strangers  and  begin  the  world  anew ; 
surely  a  consciousness  of  duty,  or  some  unworthy 
principle  must  be  the  spring  of  such  extraordinary 
conduct.  In  this  case,  a  decent  respect  to  his  own 
character ;  to  the  connexions,  which  he  quits ;  and 
those,  which  he  embraces,  seems  to  call  aloud  for  the 
motives  of  so  important  a  change. 

I  am  well  aware  that  the  public  in  general  is  but 
little  concerned  at  the  fate  of  individuals.  Their  suc- 
cess, their  uneasiness,  their  struggles,  their  distress 
are  felt  only  by  a  few,  who,  formed  in  a  softer  mould, 


take  delight  in  being  interested  in  the  welfare  of  hu- 
manity. To  such  of  those  exalted  few  of  your  socie- 
ty, or  of  any  other  description  of  men,  who  may 
chance  to  know  me,  I  beg  leave  to  address  myself. 

It  is  not  my  design  to  enter  upon  the  wide  field  of 
controversy,  nor  to  combat  the  tenets  which  I  have  re- 
jected, by  the  shafts  of  ridicule  or  the  full  power  of 
argument.  Truth  does  not  require,  nor  does  gene- 
rosity allow  us  to  blacken  a  system  because  we  aban- 
don it.  What  appears  conviction  to  me  may  seem 
folly  to  you.  It  would  therefore  be  equally  absurd 
and  unjust  to  censure  you  for  opinions,  which  you 
think  it  your  duty  to  admit,  as  for  you  to  blame  me  for 
rejecting  such,  as  /  deem  unsupportable  and  false. 
Wherefore  my  sole  intention  is  to  send  you  an  apolo- 
gy for  my  own  conduct,  not  to  throw  the  most  distant 
reflection  upon  yours.  I  mean  to  countenance,  as  far 
as  I  am  able,  the  candour  of  those,  who  may  still  wish 
to  esteem  me,  or  silence  in  some  degree,  the  voice  of 
prejudice,  and  zeal  without  knowledge. 

If  nevertheless,  in  the  course  of  this  letter,  any  ar- 
guments should  occur,  that  may  tend  to  unhinge  the 
security  of  your  minds,  you  will  be  candid  enough  to 
refer  it  to  the  nature  of  the  subject,  not  to  any  inten- 
tion to  disturb  and  perplex  you. 

Were  your  belief,  indeed,  grounded  solely  on  the 
authority,  and  credit  of  your  teachers,  on  the  preju- 
dices of  education,  on  the  dictates  of  fear,  the  allure- 
ments of  interest,  or  the  horrors  of  a  conscience  per- 
petually harassed  with  the  idea  of  disobedience  and 
heresy,  you  probably  might  be  staggered  to  see  one 
of  your  ministers,  who,  you  had  some  reason  to  ima- 
gine, made  religion  his  study,  departing  from  a  sys- 


tern,  which  you  are  taught  to  venerate  as  infallible. 
But  if  your  faith  proceed  from  conviction,  and  know-  , 
ledge  of  the  cause,  if  it  be  the  result  of  mature  delibe- 
ration, and  rational  inquiry,  you  can  have  nothing  to 
fear  even  from  a  deliberate  attempt  to  raise  doubts  in 
your  minds.  God  requires  no  more  of  any  man,  than 
his  true  and  hearty  endeavours  to  be  saved  ;  and  their 
endeavours  can  never  be  ineffectual,  whose  reason 
and  conscience  tell  them,  they  are  in  the  way  to  sal- 
vation. If  these  faithful  guides  speak  such  a  lan- 
guage to  your  hearts,  continue  to  listen  to  their  sav- 
ing lessons ;  continue  to  be  happy.  But  let  no  secu- 
rity whatever,  no  conviction  of  your  exclusive  happi- 
ness so  warp  your  understandings,  or  exulcerate  your 
hearts,  as  to  make  you  pronounce  condemnation  upon 
those  who,  after  consuming  years  in  unbiassed  inqui- 
ries, can  discover  no  unerring  authority  delegated  to 
man,  nor  admit  many  doctrines,  which  that  authority 
proposes.  For  your  sokes,  I  deprecate  such  unchris- 
tian usage,  as  well  as  for  my  own.  Yet  I  fear  alas  ! 
that  happy  period  is  still  at  a  distance  when  the  cha- 
rity, that  behaveth  not  unseemly,  that  thinketh  no  evil, 
shall  compose  the  jarrings  of  religious  antipathy.  The 
pride  of  opinion  is  too  firmly  riveted  upon  the  human 
mind  to  admit  of  any  apology  from  those,  who  oppose 
it.  A  desertion  from  a  favourite  system  bears  too 
hard  upon  the  abandoned  cause  to  be  easily  forgiven  : 
and  the  man,  who  is  bold  enough  to  adopt  such  a 
measure,  will  soon  find  himself  a  profane  object  of 
abhorrence  to  the  persons  whom  he  most  esteemed, 
or  by  whom  he  had  been  most  tenderly  beloved. 

For  it  is  a  lamentable  truth,  that  on  every  occasion 
similar  to  the  present,  unjust  suspicions  and  illiberal 
* 


6 

censure  are  indulged  without  remorse.  They  find 
their  way  into  minds,  which,  in  other  respects,  are  ac- 
customed to  startle  at  the  very  shadow  of  evil.  The 
most  advanced  in  the  habits  of  Christian  meekness  and 
forbearance,  too  often  mistake  the  workings  of  animo- 
sity for  sentiments  of  pity  towards  an  unfortunate 
brother.  Men  of  sense  and  education  too  often  make 
a  merit  of  sacrificing  their  temper  and  understanding 
to  the  blind  ardour  of  their  zeal.  The  most  eloquent 
and  powerful  champion  of  the  English  Roman  Catho- 
lics ;  the  professed  advocate  for  unlimited  toleration, 
could  not  so  far  abandon  his  original  prejudices,  as  to 
think  favourably  of  any  one,  who  leaves  the  commu- 
nion he  belongs  to.*  What  grounds  have  /  therefore 
to  expect  any  partial  indulgence,  any  unusual  exer- 
tions of  charity  and  candour.  No,  my  fellow  Chris- 
tians, I  am  not  bold  enough  to  flatter  myself,  that 
such  will  be  my  lot.  If,  however,  contrary  to  my  ex- 
pectations, any  among  you  should  be  found  generous 
enough  to  answer  the  voice  of  obloquy,  and  assert  my 
sincerity,  to  such  I  shall  ever  be  happy  to  make  my 
gratitude  known.  Under  many  distressful  feelings,  it 
will  be  a  comfort  to  reflect,  that  my  slender  endeavours 
have  operated  in  the  minds  of  some  among  you,  a  re- 
volution so  congenial  to  the  mild  spirit  of  the  gospel. 
Perhaps,  were  you  acquainted  with  the  painful 
struggles,  which  this  public  declaration  of  my  senti- 
ments has  caused  me,  your  pity  on  this  occasion,  would 
be  unmixed  with  resentment.     You  would  see  the 


*  State  and  behaviour  of  the  English  Catholics,  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Berington, 
page  132.  In  the  second  edition  of  this  spirited  work  the  author  softens  his 
censure  of  those,  who  may  abandon  his  communion ;  but  the  original  sense  of 
it  remains  nearly  the  same. 


cruel  impropriety  of  being  angry  with  a  man,  who 
has  endeavoured  to  discover  the  truth  of  your  doc- 
trines, and  striven  with  all  the  powers  of  his  soul  to 
believe  them  ;  who  calls  heaven  to  witness,  that  he 
has  weighed  every  argument  for  and  against  your 
mode  of  religion  with  the  same  impartiality,  as  if  the 
world  contained  no  Being  but  God  and  himself. 

I  pretend  not  to  any  uncommon  powers  of  reason- 
ing, or  quickness  of  apprehension — I  feel  myself  sub- 
ject to  prejudice  and  mistake — I  am  too  well  acquaint- 
ed with  the  instability  of  my  own  heart  to  boast  of 
any  exemption  from  the  usual  frailties  of  man.  But 
among  the  weaknesses  to  which  I  plead  guilty,  none, 
I  trust,  ever  argued  indifference  to  religion,  contempt 
for  morality,  forgetfulness  of  honour,  or  any  propen- 
sion  to  that  lowest  stage  of  depravity,  which  makes 
men  act  habitually  the  parts  of  hypocrites. 

There  was  a  time,  when,  like  you,  I  gloried  in  my 
religion  ;  I  daily  thanked  God,  that  I  was  not,  like  other 
men,  heretics,  scfiismatics  and  infidels  ;  I  subscribed  with 
unfeigned  sincerity  to  that  article  of  your  belief; 
w  That  the  Roman  church  is  the  mother  and  mistress 
of  all  churches,  and  that  out  of  her  communion  no  sal- 
vation can  be  obtained."*  I  was  persuaded,  that  the 
arguments  of  her  adversaries  were  lighter  than  chaff; 
though,  at  the  same  time,  I  should  have  deemed  it  an 
impiety  to  weigh  them  in  the  scales  of  impartiality 
and  candour.  Common  sense  informed  me,  that  in- 
quiry implied  a  doubt,  whilst  the  voice  of  the  church 
was  loud  in  proclaiming,  that  to  doubt  of  any  doctri- 
nal point  was  to  be  no   longer  a  Roman  Catholic. 

*  See  the  famous  creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  the  present  standard  of  ortho- 
doxy in  the  Roman  church. 


8 

Under  such  a  dilemma  the  inquisitive  faculties  of  the 
mind  must  remain  in  a  state  of  torpid  acquiescence,  or 
be  exerted  only  after  a  previous  and  definitive  judg- 
ment has  been  passed  upon  the  truth,  or  falsity  of  the 
doctrines  in  debate.  I  was,  therefore,  soon  convinced, 
that  no  consistent  Roman  Catholic  can  be  a  candid  in- 
quirer in  matters  of  religion.  He  cannot  set  out  with 
that  indifference  to  the  truth  or  falsity  of  a  tenet, 
which  forms  the  leading  feature  of  rational  investiga- 
tion ;  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  it  was  painful  to  con- 
clude, that  an  honest  search  into  the  truths  and  na- 
ture of  religion  could  be  any-wise  offensive  to  its 
merciful  author.  "  I  could  never  perceive  why  in  re- 
ligious inquiries  our  reason  should  be  particularly 
restrained ;  as  the  subject  is  of  singular  importance, 
it  seemed  that  even  greater  latitude  should  be  allow- 
ed us."#  To  "  prove  all  things,  and  hold  fast  that 
which  is  good,"  was  the  important  advice  of  an  in- 
spired apostle.t  I  regarded  it  as  an  essential  duty 
of  a  minister  of  religion  "  to  be  ready  always  to  give 
an  answer  to  every  man  that  asketh  him  a  reason  of 
the  hope  that  is  in  him,  with  meekness  and  fear."J  In 
a  word,  the  positive  injunction  of  the  beloved  disciple 
of  Jesus,  "  not  to  believe  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spi- 
rits, whether  they  be  of  God,"§  was  a  sufficient 
voucher  for  the  lawfulness  and  expediency  of t  inqui- 

■7-11 

*  State  and  behaviour  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  page  139. 

t  1  Thess.  v.  $  1  Pet.  iii.  15. 

{  1  John  iv.  1. 

||  Not  to  mention  many  other  ancient  fathers,  who  advise  us  to  have  re- 
course to  the  scriptures  in  all  our  doubts  about  religion,  I  will  only  lay  before 
the  reader  two  remarkable  passages  of  St.  Chrysostom.  This  eloquent  doc- 
tor shall  speak  for  all  the  rest.     "  When  you  shall  see  an  impious  heresy, 


My  connexions,  moreover,  with  many  valuable 
Protestants,  with  whom  I  lived  in  habits  of  intimacy 
and  friendship,  served  not  a  little  to  enlarge  my 
ideas,  and  wean  my  mind  from  the  narrowness  of  a 
system.  In  proportion  as  I  became  acquainted  with 
their  persons,  I  ceased  to  view  their  principles  through 
the  medium  of  prejudice.     If  "  pure  and  undeliled  re- 

which  is  the  army  of  antichrist,  standing  in  the  holy  places  of  the  church  ; 
then  let  those  who  are  in  Judea  betake  themselves  to  the  mountains  :  that  is, 
let  those  who  are  in  Christendom  betake  themselves  to  the  scriptures.  For 
Christendom  is  the  true  Judea,  the  mountains  are  the  writings  of  the  prophets 
and  apostles.  But  wherefore  ought  all  Christians,  at  this  time,  to  have  recourse 
to  the  scriptures?  Because  at  this  time,  since  heresy  has  infected  the  churches, 
the  divine  scriptures  only  can  afford  a  proof  of  genuine  Christianity,  and  a  re- 
fuge to  those  who  are  desirous  of  arriving  at  the  truth  of  faith.  Formerly  it 
could  be  evinced  by  various  means,  which  was  the  true  church  of  Christ,  which 
the  church  of  the  Gentiles ;  but  at  present  there  is  no  other  method  left  to  those 
who  are  willing  to  discover  the  true  church  of  Christ,  but  by  the  scriptures  only. 
And  why?  Because  heresy  has  all  outward  observances  in  common  with  her. 
If  a  man,  therefore,  be  desirous  of  knowing  the  true  church  of  Christ,  how  will 
he  be  able  to  do  it  amidst  so  great  a  resemblance,  but  by  the  scriptures  only  / 
Wherefore  our  Lord  foreseeing,  that  such  a  great  confusion  of  things  would 
take  place  in  the  latter  days,  orders  the  Christians  who  are  in  Christendom, 
and  desirous  of  arriving  at  the  firmness  of  faith,  to  have  recourse  to  nothing  but 
the  scriptures;  for  if  they  should  look  up  to  any  Iking  else,  they  will  be  scan- 
dalized and  will  perish,  as  not  understanding  which  is  the  true  church."  In 
Mafth.  c.  24.  horn.  49.  Here  I  cannot  help  asking,  whether  such  would  now 
be  the  advice  of  a  Roman  Catholic  doctor  to  a  person  labouring  under  similar 
doubts  ?  Would  not  such  a  person  be  rather  discouraged  from  consulting  the 
scriptures,  and  referred  to  the  decisions  of  Popes  and  coun<  ils  ?  Again,  in  2  ad, 
Corinth,  horn.  13.  u  Let  us  not  attend  to  the  opinions  of  the  many  ;  but  let 
us  inquire  into  the  things  themselves.  For  it  is  absurd,  while  we  "will  not  trust 
other  people  in  pecuniary  matters,  but  choose  to  count  and  calculate  our  money 
ourselves,  that  in  affairs  of  much  greater  consequence, we  should  implicitly  follow 
the  opinions  of  others  ;  especially,  as  we  are  possessed  of  the  most  exact  and 
perfect  rule  and  measure,  by  which  we  may  regulate  our  several  inquiries,  I  mean 
the  regulations  of  the  divine  laws.  Wherefore  I  could  wish,  that  all  of  you 
would  neglect  what  this,  or  that  man  asserts  for  truth,  and  that  you  would  in- 
vestigate all  these  things  in  the  scriptures."  How  one  of  the  most  enlightened, 
doctors  of  antiquity  could  write  this  passage,  and  yet  regard  the  doctrine  ot 
private  judgment  as  heretical,  is  a  paradox,  which  all  the  fine-spun  subtleties  ot 
modern  schoolmen  would  find  it  difficult  to  unravel. 


10 

ligion  with  God  and  the  Father"  be  this,  '•  to  visit 
widows  and  orphans  in  their  tribulation,  and  to  keep 
one's  self  unstained-from  this  world,"*  I  think  I  know 
several  who  have  a  good  claim  to  this  religion. 

It  soon  became  painful  to  regard  such  fellow  Chris- 
tians, some  of  whom  are  very  near  my  heart,  as  stray- 
ing widely  from  the  only  road  to  happiness,  by  refus- 
ing to  submit  to  a  church,  out  of  the  pale  of  which 
no  salvation  can  be  had.  I  dismissed  the  cruel  idea 
with  contempt  and  indignation;  but  with  it  a  lead- 
ing principle  of  my  former  belief  was  abandoned.  I 
know  that  some  of  your  late  ingenious  apologists  in 
England,  where  a  writer  must  affect  to  be  liberal,  if 
he  mean  to  be  read,  have  laboured  hard  to  palliate 
the  severity  of  this  unpopular  tenet.  Others  have 
rejected  it,  as  no  article  of  their  creed.  But  neither 
the  sophistry  of  the  former,  nor  the  inconsistency  of 
the  latter,  can  do  away  a  doctrine  so  expressly  de- 
livered in  every  public  catechism  and  profession  of 
faith.  Neither  transubstantiation,  nor  the  infallibility 
of  the  Roman  church,  are  taught  more  explicitly  as 
articles  of  faith,  than  the  impossibility  of  being  saved 
out  of  the  communion  of  this  church.  That  Roman 
Catholics  profess  some  tenets  supernumerary,  and  in- 
imical to  Christian  faith,  may  be  the  opinion  of  a  Pro- 
testant: but  that  Protestants  of  sense  and  education 
are  in  a  state  of  damnation,  must  be  the  religious  belief 
of  a  consistent  Roman  Catholic.  Look  into  any  one  of 
your  own  writers  upon  controversy,  and  you  will  find 
this  argument  repeatedly  made  use  of:  "  Protestants 
allow  salvation  to  Roman  Catholics ;  but  Roman 
Catholics  do  not  allow  salvation  to  Protestants  :  there- 

•  James  i.  27. 


11 

lore,  the  Roman  Catholic  religion  is  the  safest  of  the 
two." 

In  the  history  of  the  follies  and  depravity  of  man, 
there  does  not  occur  a  stronger  instance  of  both,  than 
that  such  an  article  should  be  interwoven  into  the 
texture  of  his  belief.  Nor  can  the  effrontery  of  false 
reasoning  offer  a  greater  insult  to  common  sense,  than 
to  plead  the  uncharitableness  of  a  tenet  as  an  argu- 
ment for  its  truth.  But  when  we  consider  further, 
that  this  barbarous  tenet  laid  the  first  foundations  for 
the  cruel  heresy  of  the  persecutors,*  who,  under  pre- 
text of  compelling  men  into  the  only  road  to  heaven, 
and  saving  their  souls,  inflicted  on  them  torments, 
which  humanity  shudders  to  relate,  that,  notwith- 
standing the  enormities  occasioned  by  this  tenet,  it  was 
promulged  under  horrid  anathemas  by  the  pretended 
vicar  of  the  meek  and  humble  Jesus,  was  adopted  by 
Christian  princes  and  bishops,  enforced  by  canonized 
saints  with  all  the  horrors  of  the  inquisition,t  justifi- 
ed by  law,  and  sanctified  in  pulpits  ;  the  mind  is  be- 
wildered in  the  contemplation  of  this  mystery  of  iniqui- 
ty. The  wild  enthusiasm,  that  first  broached  such  a 
doctrine,  and  the  stupid  credulity,  that  believed  it,  is 
equally  a  matter  of  indignation  and  astonishment. 
You  will  pardon  the  warmth  with  which  I  speak  upon 
this  mischievous  tenet :  its  baneful  influence  upon  the 
dearest  interests  of  society,  and  the  happiness  of  indi- 


*  If  any  doctrine  can  be  contrary  to  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  conse- 
quently heretical,  it  must  be  that  which  teaches  the  justice  of  persecution  for 
conscience'  sake.  If  it  be  said,  that  this  doctrine  has  been  taught  and  prac- 
tised by  Protestants,  my  answer  is,  that  among  Protestant  Catholic*,  as  well  as 
among  Roman  Catholics,  heresies  may  arise. 

+  St.  Dominickwas  the  first  inquisitor-general  against  the  Albigenses. 


12 

viduals  calls  for  every  exertion  to  exhibit  its  deformi- 
ty and  falsehood. 

Nor  will  the  colours  of  this  picture,  hideous  as  they 
are,  reflect  any  odium  upon  you  in  the  eyes  of  your  fel- 
low subjects.  From  my  own  observation  I  am  hap- 
py to  assure  them,  that  the  Roman  church  in  this,  as 
well  as  in  many  other  particulars,  is  daily  undergoing 
a  silent  reformation.  The  dark  monsters  of  persecu- 
tion and  bigotry  are  retreating  gradually  before  the 
light  of  genuine  religion  and  philosophy.  Mankind 
begin  to  blush,  that  near  fifteen  centuries  have  been 
necessary  to  convince  them,  that  humanity  and  tolera- 
tion are  essential  branches  of  the  religion  of  Jesus. 
Among  you,  few  are  apprized  of  the  mischiefs  with 
which  the  tenet  I  am  speaking  of  is  pregnant.  The 
more  enlightened  reject,  or  explain  it  away.  Even 
the  most  orthodox  give  it  so  faint  an  assent,  that,  ex- 
cept among  a  few  of  unusual  ignorance  and  bigotry, 
its  influence  is  but  trifling  upon  the  harmony  of  socie- 

The  absurdity  and  uncharitableness  of  believing 
with  the  assent  of  faith,  that  the  members  of  n,o  Chris- 
tian church  but  our  own  can  be  saved,  is,  therefore, 
to  me  quite  palpable  and  evident.  Yet  no  sooner  do 
reason  and  religion  sap  the  foundations  of  this  master- 
error,  than  the  fabric  raised  upon  it  must  totter  and 
fall.  Even  the  boasted  infallibility  of  a  living  autho- 
rity is  no  more,  when  salvation  is  allowed  to  Chris- 
tians who  reject  such  a  privilege.  For,  whoever 
admits  this  authority  as  an  undoubted  article  of  Chris- 
fian  religion,  must  necessarily  pronounce  condemna- 
tion upon  those  who  wilfully  reject  it.  To  refuse 
passing  such  a  sentence  amounts  to  a  tacit  renuncia- 


13 

^ion  of  the  authority  itself.  But  in  this,  as  in  many 
other  instances,  it  is  happy  for  mankind,  that  consist- 
ency of  opinion  is  not  always  to  be  found.  The  uncor- 
rupted  feelings  of  the  human  heart  will  frequently  set 
consequences  at  defiance,  while  their  pernicious  prin- 
ciples are  deemed  sacred  and  irrefragable.  This 
must  always  be  the  case  with  the  humane  and  virtu- 
ous, who  ground  their  belief  upon  authority  alone  ; 
who  seldom  inquire  into  the  relations  which  the  se- 
veral branches  of  a  system  bear  to  each  other ;  or 
who,  though  qualified  by  nature  and  education,  esteem 
it  an  impiety  to  think  for  themselves,  or  to  harbour 
the  least  suspicion  concerning  notions  which  they 
have  been  taught  from  their  infancy  to  regard  as  in- 
fallible. 

For  my  own  part,  no  sooner  had  I  relinquished  this 
unwarrantable  tenet,  than  doubts  began  to  arise  con- 
cerning some  others,  with  which  it  is  so  nearly  con- 
nected. I  experienced  very  singular  satisfaction  in 
regarding  my  Protestant  brethren  as  fellow  travellers 
in  the  same  road  to  happiness,  as  entitled  to  the  same 
grace  and  benefit ■*  of  redemption  with  myself.  In  pro- 
portion as  the  dead  weight  of  authority  was  removed, 
the  mind  recovered  its  natural  spring  and  energy, 
and  indulged  itself  in  the  warm  feelings  of  expanded 
benevolence,  which  had  hitherto  been  chilled  by  ear- 
ly infusions  of  bigotry.  To  trace  each  religious  truth 
to  its  genuine  sources  of  reason  and  revelation,  I  con- 
sidered as  the  most  noble  and  important  employment 
that  can  possibly  occupy  the  faculties  of  man. 

Scarcely,  however,  had  I  entered  upon  this  glori- 
ous  task,  when  I  felt  the  whole  force  of  Solomon's  ob- 
servation :     that    u  he,    who   increaseth   wisdom,   in- 


14 

ereaseth  sorrow."  I  foresaw  the  difficulties  to  which 
this  undertaking  would  expose  me.  I  knew,  that  to 
seek  religious  information  in  the  writings  of  Protes- 
tants, was  to  incur  the  severest  censures  of  the  church 
I  belonged  to.*  I  was  persuaded,  that  from  such  an 
inquiry  doubts  would  naturally  arise,  that  might 
destroy  the  texture  of  my  former  belief:  and  that  I 
was  bringing  upon  myself  a  series  of  long  and  pain- 
ful conflicts  between  ancient  habits  of  thinking;  and 
future  conviction.  As  I  was  determined  to  acquiesce 
ultimately  in  the  authority  of  revelation,  the  light  of 
reason,  and  the  dictates  of  conscience,  I  anticipated 
in  my  mind  the  various  disagreeable,  and  distressful 
sensations,  which  a  dereliction  of  former  principles 
would  unavoidably  occasion.  The  loss  of  reputation 
with  a  respectable  set  of  people,  who,  from  calling  me 
friend,  would  style  me  an  apostate ;  the  imputation  of 
inconstancy ;  the  suspicions  attending  the  very  name 
q{ convert,  which,  with  some  of  all  parties,  is  become  a 
term  of  reproach ;  the  mortification,  affliction,  and 
perhaps  aversion  of  kind  and  tender  relations,  who 
used  to  regard  me  as  doing  some  credit  to  my  con- 
nexions ;  pity  from  the  benevolent,  and  abuse  from 
the  zealous,  were  the  certain  consequences  of  a 
change  in  my  principles.  To  a  mind  not  callous  to 
the  importance  of  a  good  name,  to  the  endearments 
of  friendship,  to  the  affections  of  consanguinity,  and 
disclaiming  any  pretensions  to  the  apathy  of  a  stoic, 

*  Whoever  reads  any  books  written  by  heretics,  (or  Protestants,)  contain- 
ing heresy,  or  treating  about  religion,  without  permission  of  the  holy  see,  by 
virtue  of  the  Bulla  Cance,  incurs  excommunication  ipso  facto.  Whoever  re- 
tains, prints,  or  defends  them  is  subject  to  the  same  dismal  penalty.  See  Ars- 
dekrn's  Theology ',  resolutionea  practical,  ad  hares im  edit.  Antwerp,  pag.  147.  And 
every  Roman  Catholic  divine. 


15 

such  bitter  reflections  could  by  no  means  be  indiffer- 
ent. A  dreary  prospect  opening  at  the  same  time 
from  a  different  quarter,  served  not  a  little  to  en- 
hance the  gloomy  prospect  before  me.  Held  back 
from  my  native  country  and  property  by  a  long,  dis- 
tressful, and  iniquitous  war,*  destitute  of  connexions, 
to  whom  I  might  look  up  for  assistance,  and  with  a 
constitution  that  promised  but  a  slender  share  of 
health,  I  could  not  reasonably  hope  for  any  situation 
in  life  equally  eligible  with  that  which  I  might  deter- 
mine to  relinquish.  A  decent  appointment,  a  com- 
fortable house  in  a  beautiful  and  elegant  city,  and  a 
plentiful  table  with  a  virtuous,  disinterested  colleague. 

*  These  sentiments  began  to  arise,  when  there  was  little  probability  of  the 
author  being  able  to  return  quickly  to  his  native  country  in  North  America, 
where  his  whole  property  lies.  He  was  sent  to  Europe  when  very  youug,  and 
after  passing  through  some  years  of  very  rigid  discipline  in  a  foreign  academy, 
secluded  from  society,  and  debarred  from  every  species  of  information,  that 
could  make  him  acquainted  with  himself  or  the  world,  he  was  induced  to  take 
orders  among  a  body  of  men  equally  distinguished  by  their  eminence  and  their 
fall.  Whatever  aspersions  they  may  lie  under  of  ambition,  or  avarice,  the 
first  raised  very  few  of  them  to  any  dignities  in  the  church,  nor  was  the  second 
directed  in  procuring  the  delicacies  that  pamper  the  holy  indolence  of  many 
other  conventuals.  The  scanty  revenues  of  their  establishments  have  been  dis- 
covered ;  the  fantom  of  their  imaginary  treasures  is  no  more,  and  their  bitter- 
est enemies  have  never  impeached  the  purity  of  their  morals.  Cut  off  by  the 
power,  in  defence  of  which  they  were  ever  prodigal  of  their  labours,  and  their 
blood,  they  fell  pitied  by  many,  who  abhorred  the  object  of  their  zeal ;  and 
must  be  considered  by  all,  as  an  additional  monument  of  the  ingratitude  and 
tyranny  of  Rome.  Under  the  eye  of  the  pretended  father  of  the  faithful,  they 
were  oppressed  by  calumny,  and  stript  of  their  possessions,  without  being  al- 
lowed to  appeal  to  the  tribunal  of  the  public,  or  the  laws  of  their  country. 
The  Bull,  that  pronounced  the  suppression  of  their  order,  forbids  them,  or  their 
friends,  under  pain  of  excommunication,  to  utter  or  write  a  syllable  in  their  de- 
fence. Such  is  the  tender  mercy  and  justice  of  a  church,  which  styles  herseli 
the  holy  mother,  and  mistress  of  all  others.  The  humane  reader  will  excuse 
this  slender  tribute  of  gratitude,  which  the  author  pays  to  the  memory  of  an 
unfortunate  society,  in  which  he  received  the  first  lessons  of  virtue,  and  princi- 
ples of  religion.  The  first,  he  trnsts,  he  shall  never  forget :  although  convic- 
tion obliges  him  to  abandon  some  of  the  latter 


16 

were  advantages  which  I  could  hardly  meet  with 
elsewhere.  Neither  ambition,  avarice,  nor  pleasure 
could  have  any  charms  for  me.  The  humble  walk  of 
a  Roman  Catholic  missionary,  and  the  indigent  ob- 
scurity usually  attending  his  vocation  in  England,  had 
taught  me  early  in  life  to  contract  my  expectations 
within  very  narrow  limits.  No  opening  either  to  dig- 
nities or  affluence  could  make  any  change,  at  this  time, 
on  the  temper  of  my  mind ;  nor  could  I  be  influenc- 
ed in  any  degree  by  the  allurements  of  pleasure. 
However  I  might  depart  from  the  principles  of  my 
belief,  the  code  of  my  morality  was  to  remain  always 
the  same.  No  inquiry  can  alter  the  eternal  laws  of 
virtue  ;  no  sophistry  can  justify  the  cravings  of  vice. 
If  any  should  say,  (and  I  expect  it  will  be  said,)  that 
I  was  tired  of  the  law  which  obliged  me  to  live  sin- 
gle, and  was  willing  to  unite  myself  to  a  more  indul- 
gent community,  I  can  only  refer  such  declaimers  to 
the  littleness  of  their  own  minds,  where,  perhaps, 
they  will  discover  the  ungenerous  source  of  so  il- 
liberal a  reflection.  I  make  no  scruple,  indeed,  here 
publicly  to  acknowledge,  that  for  some  time  back,  I 
have  considered  the  law  of  celibacy  as  a  cruel  usur- 
pation of  the  unalienable  rights  of  nature,  as  unwar- 
rantable in  its  principle,  inadequate  to  its  object,  and 
dreadful  in  its  consequences.  The  various  mischiefs 
arising  from  it  must  be  obvious  to  every  man,  who 
will  allow  himself  to  reflect  dispassionately  upon  this 
very  absurd  and  tyrannical  institution.*  Had  this, 
however,  been  the  only  exceptional  injunction  of  your 

*  The  curious  reader  will  find  this  subject  treated  with  much  impartiality 
and  erudition  in  an  Essay  on  the  Law  of  Celibacy,  k.c.  Frinted  at  Worcester 
in  1781,  and  scld  by  llivington  and  Bew,  London. 


17 

church,  I  think  I  can  declare  before  the  God  who  is 
to  judge  me,  that  as  I  should  have  found  it  my  inte- 
rest, so  I  should  have  thought  it  my  duty  not  to  aban- 
don her  communion.  No  action  of  my  life  ever  autho- 
rized you  to  suspect,  that  any  gratification  whatever 
could  induce  me  to  part  deliberately  with  my  peace 
of  mind,  my  honour,  and  my  conscience.  How  cir- 
cumstances may  determine  me  to  act,  in  this  particu- 
lar, is  very  uncertain  at  present;  this  however  is 
evident,  that  when  a  person  withdraws  himself  pub- 
licly from  any  society,  the  discipline  of  that  society 
must  cease  to  be  binding. 

Withheld  by  the  difficulties  which  I  have  mention- 
ed, on  the  one  hand,  urged  on  by  the  irresistible 
force  of  truth,  on  the  other,  I  remained  for  some  time 
in  a  state  of  wretched,  though  I  confide,  not  guilty 
suspense.  To  sit  down  contented  with  the  faith  of 
the  poor  collier,  so  highly  appreciated  by  Roman 
Catholic  ascetics,  and  by  Bellarmin  himself;*  who, 
when  questioned  about  his  creed,  answered,  "  that  he 
believed  what  the  church  believed,  and  that  the 
church  believed  what  he  believed,"  appeared  such 
an  insult  upon  reason,  that  I  could  by  no  means  di- 
gest it.  If  a  man's  belief  be  not  rational ;  if  he  sub- 
mit to  human  authority  without  weighing  or  under- 
standing the  doctrines  which  it  inculcates,  this  belief 
is  not  faith — it  is  credulity ;  it  is  weakness.  With 
equal  merit  might  he  be  a  Jew,  a  mussulman,  or  an 
idolater,  as  each  of  these  grounds  his  principles  upon 
authority,  whose  decrees  he  deems  sacred,  whilst  he 
neglects  to  examine  them. 


*  De  arte  bene  moriendi,  lib.  2.  cap.  9. 
3 


J8 

Convinced,  at  length,  that  in  my  circumstances*  inqui- 
ry was  become  a  duty,  daily  matter  springing  up  for 
doubting  of  former  notions ;  persuaded  that  cold  and 
negative  assent  was  insincere  and  nugatory ;  and  confi- 
dent, that  the. grace  of  God  would  accompany  an  at- 
tentive and  upright  pursuit  after  truth,  I  determined 
resolutely  to  discard  all  inferior  considerations,  and 
to  be  influenced  solely  by  the  result  of  my  researches. 

With  this  view,  I  had  immediate  recourse  to  the 
fountains  of  information,  which  the  bounty  of  provi- 
dence has  laid  open  to  man.  I  read,  I  studied,  I  pon- 
dered the  old  and  new  testament  with  unremitting 
attention.  In  the  latter  it  was  easy  to  discover  the 
great  fundamental  and  necessary  doctrines  of  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation.  In  both  there  appeared  a  perfect 
code  of  morality  calculated  to  render  us  virtuous  and 
happy.  But  I  could  find  in  neither  the  discriminating 
doctrines  of  the  Roman  church. 

After  the  volumes  that  have  been  written  by  Pro- 
testant divines,  to  show  the  slender  claim  of  these  doc- 

*  They  whom  neither  education,  nor  abilities,  nor  leisure,  qualify  to  enter 
upon  such  inquiries,  must  rely  principally  on  the  authority  of  their  teachers. 
Turbam,  non  iutelligendi  vivacitas,  sed  credendi  simplicitas  u  tutissimam  facit.''' 
S.  Aug.  contra  epis.  Tund.  I  beg  leave  to  transcribe  in  this  place  the  rule, 
which  the  present  learned  and  pious  bishop  of  Chester  lays  down  for  the  lower 
sort  of  people.  "  Let  each  man,"  says  he,  u  improve  his  own  judgment,  and  in- 
crease his  own  knowledge  as  much  as  he  can  :  and  be  fully  assured,  that  God 
will  expect  no  more.  In  matters  for  which  he  must  rely  on  authority,  let  him 
trust  those  who,  by  encouraging  free  inquiry,  appear  to  love  truth,  rather  than 
such  as,  by  requiring  all  tbeir  doctrines  to  be  implicitly  obeyed,  seem  con- 
scious, that  they  will  not  bear  to  be  freely  tried.  But  never  let  him  prefer  any 
authority  to  that,  which  is  the  highest  authority,  the  written  word  of  God. 
This,  therefore,  let  us  all  carefully  study,  and  not  doubt,  but  that  whatever 
things  in  it  are  necessary  to  be  believed,  are  easy  to  be  understood.  This  let 
us  rely  on,  and  trust  to  its  truth,  when  it  declares  itself  u  able  to  make  us  wise 
unto  salvation,  perfectly  and  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works.''  2 
Tim,  -xiii,  17.  Brief  confutation  of  the  errors  of  the  church  of  Rome.   1752 


19 

trines  to  so  sacred  an  origin,  it  would  be  useless  to 
dwell  any  longer  upon  the  subject.  It  is,  besides,  a 
matter  of  so  extensive  a  nature,  that  it  would  carry 
me  infinitely  beyond  the  limits  of  this  short  address. 
It  would  plunge  me  headlong  into  the  ocean  of  con- 
troversy, which,  as  I  stated  above,  it  is  my  wish  to 
avoid.  Moreover,  it  must  be  obvious  to  every  man. 
who  is  but  moderately  acquainted  with  Roman  Catho- 
lic polemics,  that  Protestant  writers  have  thrown 
away  much  erudition  and  ingenuity  in  refuting  pre- 
tensions, which  were  never  claimed  by  their  most 
learned  opponents — I  say  the  most  celebrated  con- 
trovertists  of  the  Roman  church  acknowledge,  that 
some  of  her  essential  tenets  are  not  to  be  found  at  all 
in  the  scriptures,  or  are  delivered  in  them  with  great 
obscurity.  This,  perhaps,  is  a  fact  which  you  never 
suspected ;  I  beg  leave,  therefore,  to  instance  it  brief- 
ly in  a  {ew  particulars. 

Transubstantiation,  or  "  the  conversion  of  the  whole 
substance  of  bread  into  the  body,  and  of  the  whole 
substance  of  wine  into  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,"  is 
an  essential  article  of  the  Roman  Catholic  religion. 
But  is  this  article  clearly  and  evidently  delivered  in  any 
passage  of  the  Bible  ?  Hear  what  your  own  most  emi- 
nent doctors  have  written  upon  the  subject :  "Scotus 
says,  that  there  is  no  text  of  the  scripture  so  explicit, 
as  evidently  to  claim  our  assent  to  transubstantiation, 
without  the  decision  of  the  church;  and  this  is  not  at 
all  improbable  :  for  although  scripture  may  appear 
to  us  so  evident,  as  to  command  the  belief  of  a  dis- 
passionate man,  yet  it  may  be  reasonably  doubted 
whether  it  be  so  in  reality,  since  men  of  the  greatest 
learning  and  penetration,  among  whom  Scotus  is  emi- 


20 

nently  conspicuous,  have  thought  otherwise."*  The 
elegant  and  learned  Melchior  Canus,  bishop  of  the 
Canaries,  mentioning  "  several  particulars  belonging 
to  faith,  which  are  not  expressly  delivered  in  the  scrip- 
tures," instances,  among  others,  "the  change  of  the 
bread  and  wine  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ."1 
Alphonsus  de  Castro,  an  orthodox  and  mighty  name 
in  scholastic  theology,  has  these  remarkable  words ; 
"  Indulgences  are  not  to  be  despised,  because  the  use 
of  them  was  lately  introduced  into  the  church.  Many 
things  are  known  to  the  moderns,  of  which  ancient  wri- 
ters were  totally  ignorant.  For  in  old  authors,  there 
is  seldom  any  mention  made  of  the  transubstantiation 
of  the  bread  into  the  body  of  Christ."^ 

Since  the  decision  of  the  council  of  Trent,  it  is  be- 
come an  article  of  your  faith,  "  that  a  priest  has  pow- 
er to  forgive  sins."  But  Peter  Lombard,  the  famous 
master  of  the  sentences,  the  Newton,  the  Aristotle  of 
scholastic  divines,  was  so  far  from  discovering  this 
prerogative  in  the  scriptures,  that  he  rejects  it  at 
large,  and  is  supported  in  his  opinion  by  almost  all 
the^ancient  schoolmen  of  his  time.§  Their  doctrine  is 
thus  compendiously  delivered  by  cardinal  Hugo,  who 
lived  at  that  period  :  "  the  priest  cannot  bind  or  loos- 
en the  sinner  with  or  from  the  bond  of  the  fault,  or 
the  punishment ;  but  only  declare  him  to  be  bound,  or 
loosened  :  as  the  Levitical  priest  did  not  infect,  or 
cleanse  the  leper,  but  only  declared  him  infected  or 
clean."|| 

You  will  not,  I  presume,  question  the  authority  of 


*  Bellarm.  de  Euch.  1.  3.  cap.  23.  t  Loc.  commun.  lib.  3.  fund.  2. 

\  Vocab.  indulg.  i  Lib.  4.  sentent.  dist.  8.  e.  f.  ||  In  Matth.  16. 


21 

Fisher,  the  famous  bishop  of  Rochester,  who  sealed 
with  his  blood  the  doctrines  he  professed.   Hear  how 
faintly  he  discovers  the  revelation  of  purgatory  in  the 
scriptures.     "  As  it  is  necessary,"  says  he,  "  that  the 
doctrine  of  purgatory  should  be  known  by  all,  we  must 
presume,  that  it  can  be  proved  by  scripture."*    Hence 
it  follows,  according  to  this  learned  prelate,  that  un- 
less the  tenet  be  found  in  the  Bible,  it  is  not  necessa- 
ry that  it  should  be  known  to  all  men.     But  suppos- 
ing it  to  be  an  essential  point  of  the  Christian  religion, 
from  what  passage  of  the  scripture  can  it  possibly  be 
proved  ?    The  books  of  Maccabees  were  not  acknow- 
ledged for  canonical  scriptures  by  St.  Hierom,  Rufi- 
nus,   Epiphanius,    Athanasius,    Gregory,    and    many 
other   ancient   and  eminent  fathers.     And   the  texts 
usually  alleged  from  other  parts  of  the  Bible,t  have 
been  all  rejected  so  expressly  by  several  of  your  own 
doctors,  that   an  impartial  man  may   safely   regard 
them  as  very  doubtful  sources  of  this  extraordinary 
tenet.     That  the  Greek  church  could  never  discover 
the  proofs  for  purgatory  in  the   scriptures,  and   that 
even  the  churches  of  the  West  have  lately  become  ac- 
quainted with  these  cleansing  flames,  is  the  decided 
opinion  of  the  prelate  above  mentioned.     "  Let  any 
man,"  says  he,    "  read  the  comments   of  the   ancient 
Greeks,  and,  in  my  opinion,  he  will  find  no  mention  of 
purgatory,  or  very  rarely.     Neither  was  the  truth  of 
this  matter  known  to  all  the  Latins  at  once,  but  only 
by  degrees,  pedetentim."X     And  again,  "  to  this  very 
day  purgatory  is  not  believed  by  the  Greeks."§ 

*  Art.  18.  ad  versus  Luth. 

-r  Matth.  5.  22.  25.     Luc.  16.  9.     Act.  2.  24.     1  Cor.  3.  11.     1  Cor.  15. 
1.     Pet.  3.  19. 

.   Iliiiletn.  5  Ibidem. 


22 

I  could  easily  prosecute  this  argument  through  a 
Variety  of  instances  ;  I  could  show  you,  that  some  of 
your  most  celebrated  divines  have  acknowledged,  that 
neither  the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  church,  nor  the  in- 
vocation of  saints,  nor  the  worship  of  images,  nor  the 
precise  number  of  seven  sacraments,  with  several  other 
important  articles  of  your  communion,  can  be  proved 
from  the  scriptures.  Was  it  therefore  unreasonable 
to  assert,  that  /  could  never  discover  them  there, 
since  they  escaped  the  notice  of  such  acute  and  inte- 
rested inquirers. 

It  becomes,  then,  necessary  to  acknowledge,  that 
these  discriminating  doctrines  derive  their  whole 
claim  to  your  assent  from  the  infallible  authority  of 
the  church  you  belong  to.  Or,  in  the  words  of  your 
catechism,  "  You  must  believe  these  things,  because 
God  has  revealed  them  to  his  infallible  church."  But 
where  is  this  revelation  to  be  met  with  ?  Not  in  the 
scriptures,  as  you  have  already  seen.  God,  therefore, 
has  revealed  these  points  by  unwritten  traditions. 
But  how  can  I  know,  that  such  traditions  are  from 
God  ?  If  you  answer  me,  that  the  infallible  authority 
of  the  church  has  pronounced  them  to  be  so;  then  the 
whole  matter  rests  ultimately  upon  this  infallible  au- 
thority. This  being  once  admitted,  all  controversy 
must  cease  :  but  if  it  be  rejected,  then  must  the  only 
rule  of  our  faith  be  looked  for  in  the  Bible. 

I  am  not  ashamed  to  confess,  that  it  was  this  claim 
to  infallibility,  which  prevented  me  so  long  from  exa- 
mining the  tenets  of  the  Roman  church.  Sheltered  un- 
der the  garb  of  so  gorgeous  a  prerogative,  impressed 
upon  the  yielding  mind  of  youth  by  men  of  sense  and 
virtue  ;  backed,  moreover,  by  the  splendour  of  suppos- 


23 

ed  miracles,  and  the  horrors  of  anathemas,  opinions 
the  most  absurd  and  contradictory  must  frequently 
dazzle  and  overawe  the  understanding.  Amidst  the 
fascinating  glare  of  so  mighty  a  privilege  the  eye  of 
reason  becomes  dim  and  inactive — nothing  can  dispel 
the  darkening  film,  but  the  more  steady  and  powerful 
irradiations  of  truth ;  these,  however,  are  so  often 
blunted  by  the  mists  of  ignorance,  the  enchantment  of 
prejudice,  by  indolence,  or  the  fear  of  disturbing  an- 
cient notions,  that  they  only  find  their  way  into  the 
minds  of  a  few,  who  are  bold  enough  to  embrace  the 
hardihood  of  wisdom,  and  disregard  all  authority  that 
clashes  with  reason.* 

Should  it  be  said,  that  reason  tells  me  to  submit  to 
an  infallible  church — my  answer  is,  that  reason  tells 
me  also,  that  such  submission  is  weakness,  unless  this 
infallibility  be  demonstrated.  Show  me  the  proofs  of 
this  pretension,  and  if  I  do  not  admit  them  with  every 
faculty  of  my  soul,  you  have  my  leave  to  brand  me 
with  the  pride  of  Lucifer.  Should  you  urge,  that  rea- 
son must  tell  every  unprejudiced  man,  that  some 
texts  in  holy  writ  go  to  prove  the  infallibility  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  church,  may  I  not  answer  with  con- 
fidence, that  reason  and  experience  tell  me  much 
more  forcibly,  that  several  articles  are  incredible 
and  groundless,  which  rest  solely  on  that  infallibili- 
ty ?  Does  not  reason,  for  instance,  assure  me  with 
greater  evidence,  that  the  Almighty  requires  not  our 
belief  of  a  doctrine,  which  stands  in  direct  contradic- 
tion to  the  only  means  he  has  allowed  us  of  arriving 

*  '*  Reason  tells  those  who  are  virtuous  and  truly  philosophers  to  honour  and 
appreciate  truth  only ;  and  not  to  sutler  themselves  to  be  enslaved  to  trit 
opinions  of  the  ancients,  if  they  be  erroneous."     Justinus  Marlyr,  Jipol.  II. 


24 

at  truth — 1  mean  our  senses  and  our  understandings  ? 
Do  a  few  controverted  texts  of  the  scripture  make 
infallibility  as  evident  to  reason,  as  it  is  plain  to  the 
most  ordinary  capacity,  that  two  bodies  cannot  be  in 
the  same  place  at  once ;  that  the  same  body  cannot 
be  in  a  million  of  different  places  at  the  same  time ; 
that  whiteness  cannot  exist  without  a  body  that  is 
white  ;  nor  weight  without  a  body  that  is  heavy  ;  nor 
liquifaction  without  a  body  that  is  liquid  ;  that  the 
eternal  God  is  not  to  be  shut  up  in  boxes,  nor  de- 
voured corporally  by  vermin  ?*  Does  not  reason  as- 
sure me  with  greater  evidence,  that  no  creature  is  to 
be  invocated,  and  honoured  with  religious  worship ; 
that  public  service  ought  not  to  be  performed  in  an 
unknown  language ;  that  the  beloved  servants  and 
friends  of  God  will  not  be  punished  after  death  in  the 
flames  of  purgatory;  that  there  is  no  common  store- 
house, in  which  are  laid  up  the  superfluous  merits  of 

*  These  absurdities  and  contradictions,  with  many  others,  follow  evidently 
from  the  doctrine  of  trcnsubslantialion.  I  beg  leave  to  mention  in  this  place 
two  negative  arguments,  which  seem  to  prove  to  a  demonstration,  that  tran- 
svbstantiation  was  unknown  to  the  ancient  church.  The  first  is  this.  "  If 
the  ancient  church  had  believed  this  doctrine,  and  paid  the  same  supreme  ado- 
ration to  the  holy  sacrament,  as  Roman  Catholics  now  do  ;  is  it  not  probable, 
nay,  is  it  not  evident,  that  this  tenet  and  practice  would  have  been  urged  by 
the  Catholics  against  the  Arians,  as  an  incontestable  proof  of  the  divinity  of 
Christ  ?  This  argument,  however,  was  never  alleged  by  any  one  of  the  nume- 
rous and  learned  doctors  during  the  Arian  controversy.  A  convincing  proof 
that  such  an  argument  was  unknown."  Again,  M  Is  it  not  reasonable  to 
think,  that  the  heathen  writers,  among  their  many  charges  against  the  ancient 
Christians,  would  have  retorted  upon  them  the  accusation  of  idolatry  in  ador- 
ing a  bit  of  bread,  in  reserving  their  God  in  gold  and  silver  chalices,  boxes,  &c. 
had  the  practice  or  belief  of  the  church  given  any  room  for  so  plausible  an  ar- 
gument." I  beg  leave  to  add,  moreover,  that  the  fathers  of  the  second  coun- 
cil of  Nice  expressly  confirm  the  opinion  that  Christ's  body  in  Heaven  is  not 
flesh  and  blood  :  how  therefore  can  bread  and  wine  be  changed  into  his  body, 
if  they  become  flesh  and  blood  ?  See  L'Abbe  Cone.  Nic.  2  Act.  T.  6.  page 
541. 


25 

the  saints,  to  be  drawn  from  thence  by  the  pope,  and 
applied,  as  he  thinks  proper,  to  the  benefit  of  the  living 
and  the  dead  ? — Such  to  me  is  the  language  of  rea- 
son, which  was  never  yet  rejected  with  impunity — 
She  will  be  heard — she  must  be  respected — her 
claim  to  our  reverence  and  attention,  arises  from  the 
superiority  of  her  counsels  to  those  of  fellow  mor- 
tals : — Every  human  being  must  listen  to  her  voice, 
or  cease  to  be  rational.  Created  for  us,  and  acting 
within  us,  she  speaks  to  us  after  the  manner  best  suit- 
ed to  our  several  characters,  abilities,  and  duties — 
Becoming  all  to  all,  she  addresses  herself  with  gentle- 
ness to  some,  and  with  energy  to  others  :  but  when 
passions  are  silent,  and  prejudice  suspended,  her  lan- 
guage must  ever  be  the  language  of  truth.  Religion 
and  reason  can  never  be  at  variance,  because  the 
most  rational  religion  must  always  be  the  best.  You 
remain  Roman  Catholics,  because  you  think  your 
reason  tells  you,  that  yours  alone  is  the  true  church 
of  Christ.  You  think  it  reasonable  to  believe,  that  at 
these  words,  "  This  is  my  Body,"  pronounced  by  a 
priest,  a  bit  of  bread  is  changed  into  the  true  natural 
body  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  is  to  be  adored  as  the  eter- 
nal God,  because  your  reason  convinces  you,  that 
Christ  spoke  these  words  in  a  literal  sense,  and  be- 
cause your  church  understands  them  in  this  manner. 
But  when  reason  assures  me,  that  innumerable  ar- 
guments evince  their  meaning  to  be  figurative ;  am 
I  not  bound  to  open  my  mind  to  the  light  of  convic- 
tion, and  discard  the  infallibility  which  enforces  the 
absurdities  of  the  opposite  opinion  ? 

If  from  reason  you  appeal  to  revelation,  the  plea  to 
infallibility  will  be  found  equally  unsupported.     You 

4 


26 

will  tell  me,  doubtless,  that  the  ancient  fathers  unani- 
mously interpret  some  scriptural  passages  in  this  sense. 
But,  I  apprehend,  that  upon  inquiry,  such  an  asser- 
tion would  appear  very  hazarded  indeed.  Let  an 
impartial  man  read  the  fathers  upon  this,  and  some 
other  subjects,  and  I  will  defy  him  to  declare,  that 
he  has  met  with  this  boasted  uniformity  among  them. 
But  the  Catholic  church  has  decreed  such  to  be 
the  meaning  of  the  fathers,  and  every  Christian  is 
bound  to  acquiesce  in  her  decisions.  So  that  in  fact, 
the  whole  argument  comes  to  this.  The  church  is 
infallible,  because  her  infallibility  is  gathered  from 
scripture  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers  ; 
and  this  unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers  is  asserted, 
and  established  by  the  very  infallible  authority  which, 
in  the  first  instance,  it  was  alleged  to  demonstrate. 
Or,  in  other  words,  the  church  of  Rome  is  infallible, 
because  she  herself  has  so  determined.  Here  is  a 
circle  of  false  reasoning,  out  of  which  no  advocate 
for  infallibility  can  ever  extricate  himself  to  my  satis- 
;  faction.  It  is  an  old,  and  hackneyed  argument,  but 
not  less  conclusive  on  that  account.* 

*  It  is  very  remarkable,  that  all  Roman  Catholics  are  bound  to  admit  an 
infallible  authority,  yet  few  of  them  agree  where,  or  in  whom  it  resides.  Some, 
nay,  almost  all  the  old  schoolmen  have  taught  the  infallibility  of  the  pope. 
But  some  popes,  viz.  Liberius  Honorius,  John  22.  &c.  having  unfortunately 
subscribed  heretical  opinions,  this  doctrine  is  at  present  almost  out  of  date. 
Some  place  infallibility  in  a  general  council.  Others  in  the  pope  and  the  coun- 
cil received  by  the  whole  church.  But  when  all  is  said  that  possibly  can  be 
said,  the  pope  must  be  acknowledged  by  consistent  Roman  Catholics  as  the 
sole  depository  of  infallibility.  For  since  the  council  of  Trent,  it  is  unanimously 
taught  in  all  Roman  Catholic  churches,  that  a  council  can  decree  nothing 
without  the  assent  of  the  pope ;  that  he  alone  has  a  right  to  interpret  the 
council  and  explain  its  decisions ;  and  that  those  tenets  only  are  of  faith  which 
he  determines  to  be  so.  Thus  it  is  evident,  that  infallibility  rests  ultimately 
with  the  pope.     The  council  declares  the  meaning  of  some  passage  in  scrip- 


27 

As  to  the  few  scriptural  texts  which  seem  to  coun- 
tenance infallibility,  they  appeared  no  longer  conclu- 
sive than  I  refused  to  examine  them.  The  divine  au- 
thor of  the  Christian  religion  promised,  it  is  true,  to 
teach  his  disciples  all  truth  ;  (John  14,  15,  16.)  and  he 
undoubtedly  did  so.  But  where  did  he  so  far  ensure 
the  faith  of  their  successors,  whether  presbyters,  bi- 
shops, or  popes,  as  to  secure  them  from  building  wood, 
hay,  and  stubble,  upon  the  foundations  of  the  gospel  ? 
Does  not  St.  Paul  pronounce  that  such  would  actual- 
ly be  the  case  ?  (1  Cor.  3.  12.)  He  promised  to  be  with 
his  disciples  to  the  end  of  the  world.  (Matth.  1 9,  20.)  And 
who  denies  it  ?  He  is  with  his  church  by  his  protec- 
tion, by  his  grace,  by  the  lights  he  communicates  to 
her,  by  the  strength  which  he  exerts  in  supporting 
her  against  violence  and  temptation.  But  cannot  he 
be  with  his  church  without  rendering  her  infallible  ? 
Is  he  not  with  every  just  man  ?  Yet  who  would  hence 
infer,  that  such  a  man  is  secured  from  every  error, 
beyond  a  possibility  of  being  at  any  time  deceived  ? 


ture,  or  of  some  point  of  tradition,  and  then  the  pope  pronounces  infallibly 
upon  the  sense  of  this  declaration.  This  ultimate  decision  of  the  pope  is  sup- 
posed to  be  inspired  by  the  spirit  of  God.  But  is  the  Christian,  who  has  no 
means  of  coming  to  Ihe  knowledge  ot  this  decision  but  by  reading  it,  or  hear- 
ing it  read,  equally  secured  from  error  by  the  spirit  of  God  ?  If  he  be,  then  no 
private  Roman  Catholic  can  ever  misapprehend  the  meaning  of  any  tenet ; 
and  of  consequence,  he  is  as  infallible  as  the  pope  himself  with  regard  to  the 
right  apprehension  of  any  religious  truth.  If  he  be  not  secured  from  error,  then  he 
may  as  well  build  his  faith  upon  the  words,  of  scripture,  which  he  is  certain 
was  written  by  divine  inspiration.  A  Christian, therefore,  may  mistake  the  words 
of  a  pope,  when  he  hears,  or  reads  them,  as  easily  as  he  can  mistake,  the 
words  of  scripture.  Why,  therefore,  not  content  himself  with  what  all  par- 
ties agree  to  be  the  word  of  God ;  in  humble  confidence,  that  if  he  read,  or  hear 
it  with  due  attention,  diligence,  and  sincerity,  he  will  be  as  effectually  secured 
from  any  dangerous  error,  as  if  he  had  read,  or  heard  the  formula  of  faith  pub- 
lished by  Pope  Pius  IV. 


28 

Besides,  why  should  the  presence  of  Christ  render  the 
church  infallible,  rather  than  impeccable  ?  Are  not 
vice  and  error  equally  inherent  in  the  corruption  of 
man  ?  Is  not  the  former  as  formidable  an  enemy  to 
religion  as  the  latter  ?  Is  not  the  Christian  system  as 
perfectly  calculated  to  make  us  good  men,  as  ortho- 
dox believers  ?  Would  not  the  church  be  equally  over- 
thrown, should  either  of  these  evils  become  univer- 
sal ?  Why  then  was  it  not  as  necessary  to  secure  her 
against  the  one  as  the  other  ?  But  the  fact  is,  neither 
partial  vice  nor  partial  error  destroys  the  founda- 
tions of  the  Christian  religion,  and  therefore  it  was 
unnecessary  to  fence  against  either.  "  That  the 
gates  of  Hell,  or  rather  of  death,"  (as  the  word  hades 
manifestly  imports,)  "  shall  never  prevail  against  the 
Christian  church,"  (Matth.  16.  18.)  is  an  article  of 
my  belief,  as  well  as  of  yours.  But  the  obvious  mean- 
ing of  Christ's  promise  is  only  this,  "  That  neither  the 
subtlety  of  infernal  spirits,  nor  the  passions  of  men, 
nor  the  violence  of  both,  shall  ever  succeed  in  over- 
turning his  religion,  to  which  he  has  been  pleased  to 
annex  perpetuity.  However  feeble  and  disordered  his 
church  may  be  at  times,  the  powers  of  death  shall 
never  overcome  her.  She"  shall  then  only  cease  to 
exist,  when  time  shall  be  no  more."  The  text,  there- 
fore, does  not  even  insinuate,  that  the  Christian  church 
should  never  teach  any  articles,  besides  such  as  are 
fundamental  and  necessary,  or  that  some  overbearing 
society  of  Christians  should  not  hold  out  many  erro- 
neous opinions  as  terms  of  communion  to  the  rest  of 
the  faithful.  Against  these  great  and  essential  tenets, 
expressed  in  the  Apostles'  creed,  and  adopted  through 
every  age  by  the  most  numerous  body  of  Christians, 


29 

the  gates  of  death,  nor  of  hell,  will  never  prevail.  The 
enemy  may  sow  weeds  and  tares  among  this  heaven- 
ly grain  ;  he  may  build  structures  of  straw  upon  these 
unshaken  foundations ;  the  ignorance,  and  passions  of 
mankind  may  exhale  around  them  some  noxious  va- 
pours of  superstition  and  immorality  ;  but  they  will 
ever  retain  sufficient  light  to  conduct  each  upright 
and  pious  believer  to  all  points  of  his  duty,  upon  which 
his  salvation  depends.* 

The  narrow  limits  within  which  I  mean  to  restrain 
this  address,  forbid  me  to  dwell  any  longer  on  this 
fruitful  argument.  The  little  I  have  said,  could  not, 
with  any  propriety,  be  omitted.  It  is  impossible  to 
apologize  for  deserting  old  opinions  without  slightly 
mentioning  the  reasons  that  prove  them  to  be 
groundless.  I  shall  only  beg  your  attention  to  one 
more  consideration  of  this  plea  to  infallibility,  and  I 
have  done. 

Every  person  who  is  but  moderately  conversant 
with  the  history  of  the  church,  must  have  remarked, 
that  at  some  periods  of  time,  several  points  of  doc- 
trine were  defined  as  belonging  to  faith,  which  at 
others  were  debated  as  matters  of  opinion.  The  Mille- 


*  The  works  which  I  have  chiefly  made  use  of  on  this  and  other  subjects 
are,  the  Religion  of  Protestants  a  safe  way  to  Salvation,  by  William  Chilling- 
worth.  An  Answer  to  a  Challenge  made  by  a  Jesuit  in  Ireland^  and  a  treatise 
de  successione  et  statu  Christiana  ecelesia,  by  Archbishop  Usher.  Defense  de  la 
nouvelle  traduction  du  concile  de  Trent,  par  le  Pere  le  Courayer.  Albertinus 
de  sacramento  eucharistice.  Defense  de  la  reformation,  par  Mons.  J.  Claude. 
Bishop  Hurdh  Discourses  on  the  Prophecies.  These  I  have  read  with  all  the 
attention  I  am  capable  of.  And  to  these,  especially  to  the  first,  which  Mr. 
Locke  pronounces  the  masterpiece  of  logic,  I  refer  every  impartial  Christian, 
who  desires  to  find  the  great  truths  of  the  gospel  delivered  in  their  genuine  sim- 
plicity, supported  by  astonishing  powers  of  reasoning,  and  effectually  winnow- 
ed from  the  chaff  of  modern  corruptions. 


30 

narian  system,  or  the  opinion  that,  after  the  renovation 
of  the  world,  Christ  will  reign  a  thousand  years  with 
his  saints  upon  earth,  was  maintained  as  an  article  of 
the  Catholic  faith  by  almost  every  father  who  lived 
immediately  after  the  times  of  the  apostles.*  This 
doctrine  the  Roman  church  deems  heretical  at  pre- 
sent. The  necessity,  and  divine  institution  of  auricular 
confession,  now  principal  points  of  Roman  Catholic 
faith,  were  discussed  with  great  freedom  by  many  an- 
cient writers,  and  centuries  were  requisite  to  settle 
this  practice  in  its  present  form.  The  learned  Alcuin, 
who  lived  in  the  court  of  Charlemagne  during  the 
hinth  century,  tells  us  expressly ,t  "  that  some  said  it 
was  sufficient  to  confess  our  sins  to  God  alone."  In 
a  very  ancient  and  authentic  copy  of  the  Penitential 
of  Theodore,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who  died  in 
690,  which  archbishop  Usher  says  he  transcribed  in 
Sir  Robert  Cotton's  library,!  we  meet  with  these 
very  remarkable  words  :  "  It  is  lawful,  that  confes- 
sion be  made  to  God  alone,  if  it  be  requisite  :"  and  again, 
"  Learned  men  think  differently  upon  this  matter, 
because  the  doctors  seem  to  have  delivered  various 
and  almost  opposite  opinions  upon  it."  The  great 
canonist  Gratian,  who  wrote  the  Glossa?  or  comment 


*  Sec  this  particular  clearly  and  learnedly  demonstrated  by  Dr.  Burnet,  iu 
his  very  ingenious  treatise  de  statu  mortuorum  et  resurgentium,  cap.  10.  It  was 
likewise  the  decided  opinion  of  almost  all  the  primitive  fathers,  that  the  souls  of 
good  men  did  not  enjoy  the  beatific  vision  previous  to  the  general  resurrection. 
Dr.  Stapleton,  a  Roman  Catholic  divine,  cites  St.  Ireneus,  Tertullian,  Origen, 
Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  Oecumenius,  Theophylact,  Ambrose,  Clemens  Ro- 
manus,  and  St.  Bernard  as  advocates  for  this  doctrine,  (Defens.  Auct.  Eccl. 
1.  1.  cap.  2.)  which,  however,  was  condemned  as  heretical  by  the  council  of 
Florence. 

t  Epist.  26. 

|  See  Usher's  answer,  &c.  art,  confession,  page  107. 


31 

upon  the  famous  Decretals,  speaks  very  explicitly 
upon  the  matter  in  question — "  some  maintain,"  says 
he,  "  that  forgiveness  of  sins  may  be  obtained  without 
any  confession  made  to  the  church,  or  a  priest."  He 
then  cites  St.  Ambrose,  Austin,  and  Chrysostom,  as 
patronizing  this  opinion.  We  have  little  reason, 
therefore,  to  be  surprised  at  what  Maldonatus  the 
Jesuit  tells  us  :"*  "  That  all  the  canonists,  following 
their  first  interpreter,  maintain,  that  confession  was  in- 
troduced by  ecclesiastical  institution;  which  opinion," 
continues  he,  "  is  now  sufficiently  declared  to  be  here- 
tical by  the  church."  During  the  same  deplorable 
era  of  superstition  and  ignorance,  "  an  era,"  says 
Sigonius,f  and  other  Roman  Catholic  historians,  "sur- 
passing the  darkest  and  most  profligate  ages  of  anti- 
quity, as  well  by  the  infamy  of  its  princes,  as  the 
madness  of  the  people  ;"  when  the  slender  stock  of 
knowledge  possessed  by  the  clergy  was  employed  in 
compiling  the  most  contemptible  legends,  or  involv- 
ing the  plain  meaning  of  the  scriptures  in  the  clouds 
of  allegory,  and  the  jargon  of  the  schools  ;  when  bi- 
shops sat  as  judges  at  councils,  who  were  unable  to 
write  their  own  names  ;|  when  the  lamp  of  science 
was  nearly  extinguished  hi  the  western  empire,  and 
the  extravagance  of  a  tenet  was  its  best  recommen- 
dation to  the  credulous  multitude  ;  at  this  woful  pe- 
riod of  the  degradation  of  reason  and  prevalence 
of  vice,  the  nature  of  Christ's  presence  in  the  Eucha- 
rist began  first  to  be  agitated.  The  term  transub- 
stantiation  was  yet  unknown   to  the  Catholic  church. 

*  Disput.  de  Sac  ram.  de  Confess,  cap.  g. 

t  Lib.  6.  de  Regno  Italiae. 

|  See  Nonr.  Traite  dediplorn.  torn.  2.  p.  424.  Par  deux  Benedictins. 


32 

An  obscure  bishop,*  who  lived  eleven  hundred  years 
after  the  time  of  the  apostles,  was  the  inventor  of  this 
mysterious  word,  which  has  proved  for  several  centu- 
ries the  test  of  orthodoxy  among  some  Christians,  and 
the  scandal  to  others.  The  doctrine  conveyed  by  it 
was  no  article  of  faith  prior  to  the  council  of  Lateran, 
held  in  1215,  as  Scotus  assures  us.f  It  was  towards 
the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century,  that  Paschasius 
Radbertus,  first  a  monk,  then  abbot  of  Corbie,  pub- 
lished his  treatise  upon  the  corporal  presence  of  Christ 
in  the  Eucharist,  and  as  Bellarmin  tells  us,  was  the 
"  first  who  wrote  seriously  and  copiously  concerning 
\V\  This  monk,  however,  informs  us  himself,  that 
his  doctrine  was  by  no  means  universal,  or  settled.  In 
his  letter  to  Frudegardus,  speaking  of  the  corporal 
presence,  "  You  question  me,"  says  he,  "upon  a  sub- 
ject, about  which  many  are  doubtful." — Nay,  this  is 
so  very  evident,  that  Rabanus  Maurus,  who  is  styled 
by  Baronius  the  brightest  luminary  of  Germany,  about 
the  year  847  wrote  expressly  against  the  novelty  of 
this  doctrine  in  a  letter  to  Heribaldus,  bishop  of 
Auxerres  :  he  tells  him,  that  "  some  of  late,  (meaning 
Paschasius  and  his  disciples,)  not  having  a  right  no- 
tion of  the  sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  our 
Lord,  said  that  this  is  the  body  and  blood  of  our 
Lord,  which  was  born  of  the  virgin  Mary,  and  in 
which  our  Lord  suffered  upon  the  cross,  and  rose 
from  the  dead  ;  which  error"  continues  he,  "  we  have 
opposed  with  all  our  might."  I  could  show  you  fur- 
ther with  what  zeal  and  erudition  this  growing-  error 

*  Stephen,  bishop  of  Autun. 

i  Bellarm.  lib.  3.  de  Euchar.  cap.  23. 

X  Bellarm.  de  Scrip.  Eccles. 


33 

Was  confuted  by  other  famous  men  who  lived  in  that 
century,  and  especially  by  Ratramus,  or  Bertram, 
employed  expressly  by  Charles  the  Bald  to  oppose  it. 
His  work  is  still  extant,  and  proved  to  be  genuine  by 
the  learned  Mabillon. 

Thus  we  see,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  carnal  pre- 
sence was  no  sooner  openly  maintained,  than  some  of 
the  most  celebrated  doctors  of  the  time  arose  to  com- 
bat it;  without  incurring  any  suspicion  of  heresy  from 
their  opponents.  A  convincing  proof  that,  at  the  pe- 
riod I  am  speaking  of,  it  was  regarded  merely  as 
matter  of  opinion.  And  such,  in  fact,  it  continued  to 
be  for  two  hundred  years ;  when  so  extravagant  a 
censure  was  passed  upon  those  who  denied  it,  by  pope 
Nicholas  and  a  council  assembled  at  Rome,  that  wn- 
less,  as  the  comment  upon  the  canon  law  cautions  us, 
"  we  interpret  it  in  a  sound  sense,  we  shall  fall  into 
greater  heresy  than  that  of  Berengarius  himself."* 

What  I  have  hitherto  said,  was  meant  only  to  con- 
vince you,  that  the  Roman  church  regards  some  doc- 
trines, at  present,  as  articles  of  faith,  which  for  many 
ages  were  debated  as  matters  of  opinion.  Now,  from 
this  fact,  once  admitted,  an  argument  arises  against 
the  system  of  infallibility,  to  which  I  could  never  dis- 
cover a  satisfactory  answer.  For  it  must  be  grant- 
ed, these  doctrines  were  delivered  by  Jesus  Christ 
and  his  apostles  as  essential,  or  not  essential.  If  the 
first  be  said,  then  it  is  evident,  that  the  church  has 
forfeited  her  claim  to  infallibility  by  omitting  for  many 
ages  to  teach  doctrines  as  essential,  which  Christ  and 
his  apostles  delivered  as  such.     If  they  were  not  deli- 

•  Glossa  decret.  de  consecrat  dis.  2.  iacap.  Ego  Bermqariu* 
5 


J4 

vered  as  essential,  what  are  we  to  think  of  that 
church's  infallibility,  which  enforces  doctrines  as  wc- 
cessary  and  essential,  which  the  author  of  Christianity 
did  not  teach,  nor  she  herself  for  many  centuries 
conceive  to  be  so  ?  To  such  dilemmas  are  the  advo- 
cates of  this  system  reduced.  In  order  to  maintain 
a  uniformity,  and  catholicity  of  opinion,  they  ima- 
gine it  necessary  to  erect  an  infallible  tribunal.  But 
do  they  reflect  that  such  a  uniformity  is  entirely  chi- 
merical, and  that  every  solemn  decision  of  this  tribu- 
nal overthrows  the  unity  it  was  meant  to  establish  ? 
For  how  is  it  possible  for  a  church  to  be  one  in  point 
of  doctrine,  which  believes  to-day,  as  an  article  of  her 
faith,  what  she  yesterday  conceived  to  be  matter  of 
opinion. 

It  follows,  moreover,  from  admitting  such  a  livings 
authority,  that  the  number  of  necessary  tenets  must 
increase  as  decisions  are  multiplied.  It  will  be  in 
the  power  of  bishops  and  councils  to  frame  new  arti- 
cles of  faith,  by  deciding  ultimately  upon  fresh  matters 
of  dispute,  whether  important,  or  not  ;  whether  coun- 
tenanced by  the  scriptures,  or  otherwise.  What  was 
not  a  doctrinal  point  yesterday  may  be  so  to-day. 
Every  age  will  give  birth  to  new  tenets,  and  thus,  in- 
stead of  a  uniformity  of  testimony,  constant  variety 
must  for  ever  take  place,  to  the  no  small  confusion 
and  prejudice  of  our  belief.  The  preaching  of  Jesus 
and  his  apostles,  so  far  from  being  the  rule  of  faith 
to  succeeding  ages,  will  be  regarded  only  as  the  im- 
perfect draught  of  a  religion,  which  looks  for  perfec- 
tion from  human  decrees.  For  the  church  must  pos- 
sess the  same  authority  for  ages  to  come,  as  she  has 
enjoyed  in  those  that  are  passed ;  so  that  if,  as  opin- 


35 

ions  become  fashionable,  she  be  authorized  to  erect 
them  into  articles  of  faith,  as  has  frequently  been  the 
case,  your  creed,  perhaps,  is  still  in  its  infancy,  and  the 
belief  of  succeeding  ages,  swelled  with  the  additions 
of  some  future  pope  Pius,  may  be  as  different  from 
yours,  as  is  that  of  the  primitive  Christians  and  apos- 
tles. Under  the  specious  pretext  of  recurring  to  a 
living  judge,  in  order  to  fix  the  principles  of  our  faith, 
these  divines  render  it  still  more  wavering  and  un- 
certain. They  are  perpetually  introducing  a  succes- 
sion of  opinions  into  the  system  of  religion,  as  unset- 
tled as  the  fancies  that  produced  them,  as  doubtful  as 
the  authority  upon  which  they  rest,  as  various  as  the 
imaginations  of  those  who  have  embellished  them, 
and  as  transient  as  time  which  gave  them  birth,  and 
will,  sooner  or  later,  put  a  period  to  their  existence. 

After  what  has  been  said,  it  would  be  needless  to 
lay  before  you  my  profession  of  faith.  By  relinquish- 
ing opinions  which  I  have  striven  in  vain  to  reconcile 
to  reason  or  revelation,  I  trust,  I  cease  not  to  be  a 
Christian  and  a  Catholic  :  Both  these  appellations  be- 
long surely  to  the  man  who  believes  and  professes,  as 
I  solemnly  do,  every  point  of  Christian  faith,  which  at 
all  times,  and  in  all  places,  has  constituted  the  creed  of 
all  orthodox  believers*  This  universal  Christian  Catholic 
faith  is  delivered  compendiously  in  the  apostles' 
,  creed  :  whoever  subscribes  to  this  in  its  full  extent, 
'  must  be  a  member  of  the  Catholic  church-t     The 

*  Ille  est  verus  et  germanus  Catholicus,  qui  in  fide  fixus  et  stabilis  perma- 
nens,  quicquid  universaliter  anliquitus  ecclesiam  Catholicam  tenuisse  cognove- 
rit,  id  solum  sibi  tenendum,  credendumque  decernit.  Vine.  Lerin.  Common, 
c.  25. 

t  It  will  here  be  objected  by  many,  that  if  we  admit  the  apostles'  creed  in 
its  f till  ex  lent  ■,  we  must  believe  in  the  holy  Catholic  church  with  the  same  as- 


30 

apostles,  or  their  immediate  successors,  in  drawing  up 
no  other  profession  of  faith,  discovered  clearly  what 
they  intended  should  be  the  belief  of  their  disciples. 
By  adhering  solely  to  this  universal  belief,  which  alone 
possesses  the  sanction  of  all  times,  all  places,  and  all 
churches,  no  man  can  be  said  to  embrace  a  new  reli- 
gion, however  he  may  discard  some  doctrines,  which 
at  different  periods  of  time  have  been  engrafted  up- 
on the  old  one  ;  especially  if  he  discover,  after  mature 
investigation,  that  these  doctrines  were  unknown  to 
the  best  ages  of  the  church,  were  conceived  origin- 
ally in  ignorance,  fostered  by  superstition,  supported 
by  pious  forgeries,  adopted  by  worldly  policy,  propa- 

sent  of  faith  with  which  we  believe  in  God  the  Father,  in  God  the  Son,  and 
in  God  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  that  consequently  we  declare  our  implicit  sub- 
mission to  all  the  decisions  of  this  church.  This  argument  is  as  fallacious  as 
it  is  common  and  imposing;  the  most  authentic  catechism  of  the  Reman 
church  entirely  overthrows  it.  The  catechism  of  the  council  of  Trent  has 
these  remarkable  words,  with  which  few  religious  instructors  seem  to  be  ac- 
quainted :  "  It  is  therefore  necessary  to  believe,  that  there  zs  one  holy  and 
Catholic  church  :  for  we  so  believe  the  three  persons  of  the  trinity,  the  Fa- 
ther, and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  in  (hem  we  place  our  faith ;  but  now, 
,the  form  of  speaking  being  altered,  we  profess  to  believe  the  holy  church,  but 
not  to  believe  in  it;  that  by  this  different  mode  of  expression,  God,  the  maker 
of  all  things,  may  be  distinguished  from  creatures."  I  think  this  passage,  if 
well  considered,  might  contribute  much  to  finish  all  controversies  between  us, 
It  behooves  every  Christian  therefore  to  pay  it  some  attention.  We  are  taught 
by  it  from  the  apostles'  creed,  which  we  both  admit,  to  believe  in  God  the 
Father,  in  God  the  Son,  and  in  God  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  this  holy  trinity  we 
are  taught  to  place  our  faith,  but  only  to  believe  that  there  is  one  holy  and  Catho- 
lic church ;  and  the  reason  alleged  for  this  difference  in  our  belief  is  most  strong 
and  unanswerable:  for  the  whole  body  of  the  church  consisting  of  mortal  men, 
who  are  all  creatures ;  if  we  should  believe  in  the  church  as  we  believe  in  the 
blessed  trinity,  we  should  notmcvke  a  sufficient  difference  between  God  and  his 
creatures.  This  is  the  plain  and  rational  doctrine  of  your  church's  catechism, 
and  if  they  who  have  the  care  of  your  souls,  do  not  distinctly  instruct  you  in 
it,  but  suffer  you  to  remain  in  an  erroneous  notion,  that  you  are  to  belii-ve  in 
the  holy  Catholic  church,  they  certainly  do  not  deal  with  you  as  candidly  as 
}bey  ought. 


37 

gated  by  artifice,  and  enforced  by  all  the  power  that 
spiritual  tyranny  could  exert.  If  you  ask  me,  there- 
fore, to  what  church  I  now  belong,  my  answer  is,  to 
the  Christian  Catholic  church.  Of  that  society  of  Chris- - 
tians  I  profess  myself  a  member,  who  adopt  the  holy 
scripture  for  the  sole  standard  of  their  belief:  the 
Protestant  churches  in  general  know  no  other  rule  : 
some  shades  of  difference  may  subsist  in  their  public- 
liturgies  and  speculative  disquisitions ;  but  among 
none  of  the  principal  branches  of  the  reformed 
churches  are  the  latter  obtruded  as  articles  of  faith,  or 
the  former  found  repugnant  to  reason  or  morality. 
Through  the  same  divine  Mediator  they  worship  the 
same  God  ;  and  from  the  sufferings  and  merits  of  the 
same  Redeemer,  they  expect  forgiveness  of  their  sins, 
and  happiness  for  evermore.  In  this  country,  where 
the  Christian  only  is  the  established  religion,  where 
tests  and  subscriptions  are  unknown,  where  refined 
speculations  are  not  likely  to  deform  the  simplicity  or 
interrupt  the  harmony  of  the  gospel,  I  look  forward 
with  rapture  to  that  auspicious  day,  when  Protestants, 
opening  their  eyes  upon  their  mutual  agreement  in  all 
the  essentials  of  belief,  will  forget  past  animosities,  and 
cease  to  regard  each  other  as  of  different  communions. 
Perhaps,  at  that  happy  period,  Roman  Catholics  also 
may  awake  from  their  prejudices,  and,  disregarding 
the  menaces  of  blind  zeal  or  ignorance,  may  begin  to 
think  for  themselves,  throw  off  the  galling  yoke  of 
old  European  prepossessions,  and  unite  cordially  in 
restoring  primitive  simplicity  both  in  morals  and  be- 
lief. To  indulge  in  these  ideas  may,  perhaps,  be  ex- 
travagant; but  to  a  mind  of  sensibility,  it  must  surely 
be  delightful.     My  religion,  therefore,  is  that  of  the 


38 

Bible  :  whatever  that  sacred  book  proposes  as  an  ob- 
ject of  my  faith,  or  a  rule  of  my  conduct,  was  inspired 
by  the  unerring  Spirit  of  God,  and  for  that  reason  I 
admit  it  with  all  the  faculties  of  my  soul. 

Your  religion  is  the  doctrine  of  the  council  of  Trent : 
mine  the  plain  truths  delivered  in  the  scriptures.  You 
shelter  yourselves  under  the  decisions  of  a  tribunal, 
which  you  believe  to  be  infallible  :  /rely  solely  upon 
the  authority  of  God's  word  ;  which,  as  St.  Chrysos- 
tom  assures  us,  "  expounds  itself,  and  does  not  suffer 
the  reader  to  err."#  You  think  it  necessary  to  recur 
fto  unwritten  tradition  ;  but  /  must  demand,  with  St. 
Cyprian,  "  whence  have  you  that  tradition  ?  comes 
it  from  the  authority  of  the  Lord,  and  of  the  gospel, 
or  from  the  epistles  of  the  apostles  ?  for  God  testifies 
that  we  are  to  do  those  things  that  are  written,  &c. :  if 
it  be  commanded  in  the  gospel,  or  contained  in  the 
epistles  or  acts  of  the  apostles,  then  let  us  observe  it 
as  a  divine  and  holy  tradition."f  You  deem  the 
scriptures  deficient  and  obscure ;  /  am  satisfied  with 
the  things  that  are  written,  because  all  is  written, 
"  that  the  writers  thought  sufficient  for  faith  and  mo- 
rality."} I  ask,  moreover,  with  St.  Hilary,§  "  where 
is  this  deficiency  ;  where  is  this  obscurity  ?  In  the 
word  of  God,"  continues  he,  "  all  things  are  full  and 
perfect,  as  coming  from  a  full  and  perfect  being." 
You  require  the  sanction  of  the  church  to  stamp  the 
truth  of  each  article  of  your  creed  :  1  am  content  to 
acquiesce  in  that  authority,  to  which  alone  St.  Austin 
and  Chrysostom  refer  us,  in  order  to  discover  which 


*  Horn.  12.  in  Genesim.  +  Epist.  74. 

t  S.  Cyr.  lib.  12  Joan.  *  Lib.  2.  de  trin. 


39 

is  the  true  church  of  Christ.*  In  a  word,  you  believe 
many  articles  as  essential  to  salvation,  of  which  no 
mention  is  made  in  the  Bible  ;  whereas,  I  am  con- 
vinced, that  whoever  believes  and  practises  what  he 
discovers  there,  will  comply  with  every  moral  and 
religious  obligation,  and  rise  to  as  high  an  excellency 
of  character,  as  the  exertions  of  our  imperfect  nature 
can  reach.  Such  is  the  religion  which,  after  a  long, 
and,  as  I  trust,  sincere  deliberation,  I  have  ultimately 
chosen.  •  Every  day  convinces  me  that  I  have  chosen 
wisely.  It  is  the  religion  of  an  Usher,  a  Wilson,  an 
Hoadly,  and  a  Newton,  and  of  innumerable  other 
worthies,  whose  admirable  writings  and  Christian 
lives,  have  been  unanswerable  apologies  for  the  prin- 
ciples they  professed.  This  I  will  ever  profess ;  ac- 
cording 1o  this,  through  God's  grace,  will  I  endea- 
vour to  regulate  the  tenor  of  my  conduct.  Upon  this 
will  I  stake  my  happiness  for  eternity.  This  will  I 
inculcate  into  those  whom  Providence  may  at  any 
time  place  under  my  direction ;  and  for  this,  if  cir- 
cumstances should  require  it,  I  hope  I  should  be  wil- 
ling to  lay  down  my  life. 

And  now,  my  fellow  Christians,  I  must  take  my 
leave  of  you.  Some  of  you,  perhaps,  will  believe  me, 
when  I  assure  them  that  I  do  it  with  very  painful  re- 
gret. The  many  civilities  which  I  experienced  during 
my  residence  among  you,  have  made  a  strong  and 
lasting  impression  on  my  mind.  I  trust  no  alteration 
in  my  religious  opinions  will  be  ever  able  to  efface  it. 
Convinced  by  reason,  and  taught  by  revelation,  that, 
true   and   genuine   religion  consists  more   in  perfect 

■'■'■  S.  Aug;,  twit  eccltr.  chap.  ft.     Chrys.  in  Matlh.  cap.  24.  horn.  49 


40 

union  of  heart  than  entire  conformity  of  opinion,  I 
shall  still  deem  it  my  duty  to  cherish  the  sentiments 
of  gratitude,  esteem,  and  charity,  which  the  worth 
and  behaviour  of  several  characters  among  you  first 
excited  in  my  breast.  To  the  last  of  these,  more- 
over, you  are  entitled,  as  fellow  men  and  fellow  Chris- 
tians. Sentiments  like  these,  coming  from  a  supposed 
enemy,  and  an  obscure  individual,  will  probably  be 
considered  by  many  with  contempt  or  indifference. 
They  who  cannot  discriminate  between  the  personal 
merit  and  the  speculative  opinions  of  men,  will  cer- 
tainly rate  them  very  low.  But  to  persons  truly  can- 
did and  sincere  themselves,  such  affections  can  never 
appear  less  acceptable  for  being  cherished  by  a  man, 
who,  without  any  prospect  of  emolument,  or  promise 
of  attention  from  the  communion  he  embraces,  has 
sacrificed  a  certain  and  comfortable  subsistence,  and 
hazarded  a  tolerable  character  among  his  nearest 
connexions,  rather  than  incur  the  reproaches  of  his 
own  mind,  or  the  guilt  of  hypocrisy.  Be  this,  however, 
as  it  may,  it  must  ever  prove  a  point  of  great  import- 
ance to  myself,  not  to  lose  sight  of  a  commandment, 
which  by  special  preference  our  common  Redeemer 
calls  his  own  ;  and  which,  as  you  know,  is  nothing 
more  than  mutual  forbearance,  benevolence,  and  love. 
If  with  these  dispositions  I  may  be  allowed  so  to  do, 
I  subscribe  myself,  with  heart  and  hand, 
Your  much  obliged  and  affectionate 
Humble  Servant, 

CHARLES  HENRY  WHARTON, 


AN 


ADDRESS 


THE    ROMAN    CATHOLICS 


OF    THE 


UNITED    STATES    OF    AMERICA. 


BY  A  CATHOLIC  CLERGYMAN, 


NEW-YORK: 

REPUBLISHED    BY    DAVID    LONGWORTH,    NO.   1  1     PARfe', 
Clayton  &  Kingsland,  Printers 

1817. 


4 

persons  eminent  for  their  knowledge  and  writings, 
concludes  with  an  important  instruction,  and  recom- 
mends it  to  be  impressed  upon  the  minds  of  Catholics, 
that  they  may  know,  that  with  the  church  they  receive 
their  teachers,  but  must  not  with  these  abandon  the  faith 
of  the  church.* 

You  will  not  now  be  at  a  loss  to  account  for  the 
occasion  of  the  present  address.  A  letter  to  the 
Roman  Catholics  of  the  city  of  Worcester  in  England 
has  been  published  here  by  one  of  their  late,  chap- 
lains ;  and  had  all  the  copies  of  it  been  transmitted 
to  those,  for  whom  professedly  it  is  intended,  I  should 
not  dedicate  to  animadversions  on  it  the  few  moments 
of  leisure  left  me  from  other  employments  incident  t» 
my  charge  and  profession  ;  especially  with  the  scanty 
materials  of  which  I  am  possessed;  for  I  am  destitute 
of  many  sources  of  information,  and  unable  to  refer 
to  authorities,  which  I  presume  to  have  been  collected 
on  the  other  side  with  great  industry.  By  the  Chap- 
lain's own  account,  he  has  long  meditated  a  separa- 
tion from  us ;  and,  during  that  time,  he  had  opportu- 
nities of  resorting  to  the  repositories  of  science,  so 
common  and  convenient  in  Europe. 

But  the  letter  not  only  being  printed  here,  but 
circulating  widely  through  the  country,  a  regard  to 
your  information,  and. the  tranquillity  of  your  conscien- 
ces, requires  some  notice  to  be  taken  of  it.  For  the 
ministers  of  religion  should  always  remember,  that  it 
is  their  duty  as  well  to  enlighten  the  understanding,  as 
improve  the  morals  of  mankind.      You  are  the  salt  of 

*  Catholici  noverint  ?e  cum  eccl^sia  doctores  recipere,  non  cum  doctoribus 
ecclesiae  fidem  deserere  debere.     Vine.  Lir.  comm.  c,  23. 


the  earth,*  said  Christ  to  his  apostles,  to  preserve 
men  from  the  corruptions  of  vice  and  immorality: 
and  you  are  the  light  of  the  worldrf  to  instruct  and 
inform  it. 

Our  duty  being  so  clearly  delineated  by  the  divine 
author  of  our  religion,  if  we  have  been  deficient  in  the 
discharge  of  either  part  of  it,  if  we  have  flattered 
your  passions,  or  withheld  knowledge  from  your 
minds,  we  have  certainly  deviated  from  the  obligations 
of  our  state,  and  the  positive  injunctions  of  our  church. 
For  though  you  have  often  heard  it  reproachfully 
said,  that  it  was  both  her  maxim  and  practice  to  keep 
her  votaries  in  ignorance,  no  imputation  can  be  more 
groundless  :  and  for  a  full  confutation  of  it,  we  refer 
our  candid  adversaries  to  the  ordinances  of  our  coun- 
cils, the  directions  of  our  ecclesiastical  superiors,  and 
the  whole  discipline  of  our  church,  even  in  ages  the 
most  inauspicious  to  the  cultivation  of  letters.  In 
those  ages,  indeed,  the  manners  of  the  times  had  great 
influence,  as  they  always  will,  on  the  manners  of  the 
clergy:  but  every  informed  and  ingenuous  mind,  in- 
stead of  being  prejudiced  by  the  vague  imputations  on 
monkish  and  clerical  ignorance,  will  remember  with 
gratitude,  that  they  owe  to  this  body  of  men  the  pre- 
servation of  ancient  literature  ;  that  in  times  of  gene- 
ral anarchy  and  violence,  they  alone  gave  such  culti- 
vation to  letters,  as  the  unimproved  state  of  science 
admitted ;  and  that  in  the  cloisters  of  cathedral 
churches,  and  of  monasteries,  they  opened  schools  of 
public  instruction,  and,  to  men  of  studious  minds,  asy- 
lums from  the  turbulence  of  war  and  rapine.    The  in- 

*  Matt.  v.  13.  t  Matt.  v.  14, 


ierence  from  these  facts  is  obvious  :  for  if  the  minis- 
ters of  religion,  agreeably  to  the  discipline  of  the 
church,  cultivated  and  taught  letters  at  a  time  when 
they  were  generally  neglected;  if  the  resurrection  of 
sound  literature  was  owing,  as  it  certainly  was,  to  the 
most  dignified  of  our  clergy  ;  who  can  impute  igno- 
rance to  us,  as  resulting  from  the  genius  of  our  reli- 
gion ? 

I  forbear  to  add  other  numerous  proofs  of  the  falsi- 
ty of  this  charge  :  and  I  can  with  confidence  appeal  to 
yourselves,  whether  your  religious  instructors  have 
not,  to  the  extent  of  their  abilities,  and  suitably  to 
your  respective  situations  in  life,  endeavoured  to  sug- 
gest such  grounds  for  your  adhesion  to  the  doctrines 
of  the  church,  as  might  make  you  ready  always  to 
give  an  answer  to  every  man  that  asketh  you  a  reason  of 
that  hope  that  is  in  you*  We  tell  you,  indeed,  that 
you  must  submit  to  the  church ;  but  we  add,  with  the 
apostle,  that  your  obedience  must  be  reasonable.  Now, 
Can  obedience  be  reasonable,  "  can  any  man  give  a 
reason  of  that  hope  that  is  in  him  without  a  due  ex- 
amination of  the  grounds  or  motives  that  induce  him 
to  it  ?  No,  surely ;  and  therefore  nothing  ought  to 
hinder  you  from  examining  thoroughly  the  grounds  of 
your  religion.  Nay,  we  exhort  you  to  examine  them 
over  and  over  again,  till  you  have  a  full  conviction  of 
conscience  that  it  is  not  education,  but  the  prevailing 
force  of  truth,  that  determines  you  in  the  choice  of  it."t 

But  is  not  this  recommendation  a  mere  delusion  ? 
Can  a  consistent  Roman  Catholic  be  a  candid  inquir- 
er in  matters  of  religion  ?    Why  not  ?    Because,  says 

V!  1  Pet.  iii.  15. 

t  England's  Conversion  and  Reformation  compared,  Sect.  1. 


the  Chaplain,  (p.  8.)  he  cannot  set  out  with  that  indiffer- 
ence to  the  truth  or  falsity  of  a  tenet,  which  forms  the  lead- 
ing feature  of  rational  investigation.     Did  the  Chaplain 
weigh  all  the  consequences  of  the  doctrine  here  ad- 
vanced ?    Must  we  then  suspend  all  the  duties  of  na- 
tural religion  and  moral  obligation  ?   Must  a  son  de- 
vest himself  of  filial  love  and  respect,  that  he  may 
investigate   rationally,  and  judge  impartially,  of  the 
obligations  resulting  from    the    tender    relations    of 
parent  and  child  ?    Must  we  neglect  to  train  the  ten- 
der minds  of  youth  in   the   habits  of  virtue,  and  to 
guard  them  from  vice,  by  the  prospect  of  future  re- 
wards and  punishments,  lest  they  should  be  inclined  to 
judge  hereafter  too  partially  of  those  great  sanctions 
of  natural  and  revealed  religion  ?   What  an  argument 
is  here  suggested  to  the  impugners  of  all  religion  ;   to 
the  enemies  of  Christianity  !    Suggested,  did  I  say,  or 
borrowed  from  them  ?    For  the  learned  Dr.  Leland, 
to  whose  writings  the  cause  of  revelation  is  so  much 
indebted,  has  informed  us,  that  it  has  been  long  ago 
made  use  of  by  them ;   and  his  answer  to  it,  more  es- 
pecially as  he  was  a  Protestant,  will  save  me  the 
trouble  of  making  any  observations  on  this  extraordi- 
nary assertion.  "Another  argument,"  says  he,  "  with 
which  he"   (the  author  Of  Christianity  not  founded  in 
argument)   "  makes   a  mighty  parade,  is  to  this   pur- 
pose, that  no  religion  can  be   rational  that  is  not 
founded  on   a  free  and  impartial  examination  :   and 
such  an  examination  supposes  a  perfect  neutrality  to 
the  principles  which  are  examined,  and  even  a  tem- 
poral disbelief  of  them,  which  is  what  the  gospel  con- 
demns.    But  this  proceeds  upon  a  wrong  account  of 
the  nature  of  free  examination  and  inquiry.     It  is  not 


8 

necessary  to  a  just  inquiry  into  doctrines  or  facts, 
that  a  man  should  be  absolutely  indifferent  to  them, 
before  he  begins  that  inquiry ;  much  less,  that  he 
should  actually  disbelieve  them :  as  if  he  must  neces- 
sarily commence  atheist  before  he  can  fairly  examine 
into  the  proofs  of  the  existence  of  God.  It  is  suffi- 
cient to  a  candid  examination,  that  a  man  apply  him- 
self to  it  with  a  mind  open  to  conviction,  and  a  dispo- 
sition to  embrace  truth  on  which  side  soever  it  shall 
appear,  and  to  receive  the  evidence  that  shall  arise 
in  the  course  of  the  trial.  And  if  the  inquiry  relateth 
to  principles  in  which  we  have  been  instructed  ;  then, 
supposing  those  principles  to  be  in  themselves  ration- 
al and  well  founded,  it  may  well  happen  that  in  in- 
quiring into  the  grounds  of  them,  a  fair  examination 
may  be  carried  on  without  seeing  cause  to  disbelieve 
or  doubt  of  them  through  the  whole  course  of  the  in- 
quiry ;  Avhich,  in  that  case,  will  end  in  a  fuller  convic- 
tion of  them  than  before."* 

But  Roman  Catholics,  it  seems,  are  fettered  with 
other  obstacles  to  free  inquiry.  They  cannot  seek  re- 
ligious information  in  the  ivritings  of  Protestants,  with- 
out incurring  the  severest  censures  of  their  church,  (Ch. 
Letter,  p.  14.)  By  the  Bulla  Ccence  excommunication 
is  denounced  against  all  persons  reading  books  writ- 
ten by  heretics,  containing  heresy,  or  treating  about 
religion.     (Note  ibid.) 

It  is  indeed  true,  that  the  Bull  referred  to  contains 
the  prohibition,  as  mentioned  by  the  Chaplain ;  and 
it  is  not  less  true,  that  in  England,  that  Protestant 
countrv  of  free  inquiry,  severe  laws  and  heavy  penal- 

*  View  of  Deistical  Writer?,  Vol.  f.  lef.  .11. 


ties  were  enacted,  and,  if  I  am  well  informed,  still 
subsist  against  the  introduction,  the  printing,  and 
vending  of  books  in  favour  of  the  Catholic  religion. 
I  know,  that  within  these  last  twenty  years,  these 
laws  have  been  executed  with  severity.  Such,  on 
both  sides,  were  the  precautions  suggested  by  a  jea- 
lous zeal  to  preserve  uninformed  minds  from  the  arti- 
ficial colourings  of  real  or  supposed  error.  The  heads 
of  the  respective  churches  considered  it  as  their  duty 
to  guard  their  flocks  from  the  poison  of  pernicious 
doctrines  ;  and  did  not  deem  it  essential  to  fair  and 
full  investigation,  that  their  adversaries'  objections 
should  be  stated  to  the  unlearned,  to  unexperienced 
youth,  or  to  the  softer  sex,  with  all  the  acrimony  of 
invective,  with  the  aggravations  of  misrepresentation? 
and  powers  of  ridicule;  weapons  too  common  in  con- 
troversies of  every  kind.  Without  examining  how  far 
this  zeal  was  prudent  and  justifiable  in  the  present 
instance,  let  me  observe,  that  the  proscription  of  books 
of  evil  tendency  is  warranted  by  the  example  of  St. 
Paul's  disciples  at  Ephesus,  acting  in  the  presence  of, 
and  probably  by  the  instructions  of  their  master. 
Many  of  them,  says  holy  writ,  that  had  followed  curious 
arts,  brought  their  books  together,  and  burnt  them  before 
all*  And  what  inference  follows  ?  So  mightily,  con- 
tinues the  inspired  writer  in  the  next  verse,  grew  the- 
ivord  of  God,  and  ivas  strengthened.  What  good 
parent,  what  conscientious  instructor,  feels  not  the 
anguish  of  religion,  when  they  find,  that  promiscuous 
reading  has  caused  the  rank  weed  of  infidelity  to  grow 
in  that  soil,  the  tender  minds  of  their  children  and 

*  Acts  xix.  IP 


10 

pupils,  where  they  had  sown  and  cultivated  the  seed? 
of  virtue  ? 

But,  be  the  prohibition  of  the  Bull  reasonable  or 
not,  I  will  be  bold  to  say,  it  was  no  prejudice  to  free 
inquiry.  First,  Because  that  Bull  not  only  was  never 
received  into,  but  was  expressly  rejected  from  almost 
every  catholic  state.  In  them  it  had  no  force ;  the 
very  alleging  of  its  authority  was  resented  as  an  en- 
croachment on  national  independence ;  and,  in  par- 
ticular, the  clause  referred  to  by  the  Chaplain  was 
generally  disregarded.  For  this  I  will  appeal  to  his 
own  candour.  Throughout  his  extensive  acquaint- 
ance with  Catholics,  has  he  not  known  them  to  read 
Protestant  authors  without  hesitation  or  reproof? 
Did  he  not  expect,  that  his  letter  would  freely  circu- 
late amongst  them  ?  To  what  purpose  did  he  address 
it  to  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  city  of  Worcester,  if 
he  knew,  that,  with  the  terrors  of  excommunication 
hanging  over  them,  they  dare  not  read  it?  In  the 
course  of  his  theological  studies,  was  he  himself  ever  . 
denied  access  to  the  writings  of  our  adversaries  ? 
Were  not  the  works  of  Luther,  Calvin,  and  Besa,  of 
Hooker,  Tillotson,  and  Stillingfleet,  and  all  the  other 
champions  of  the  Protestant  cause,  open  to  his  inspec- 
tion ?  In  public  and  private  disputations,  were  not  the 
best  arguments  from  these  authors  fairly  and  forcibly 
stated,  in  opposition  to  the  most  sacred  tenets  of  the 
Catholic  belief?  Was  not  even  literary  vanity  grati- 
fied, by  placing  objections  in  the  strongest  light,  and 
wresting  the  palm  of  disputation  out  of  the  hands  of 
all  concurrents  ?  Knowing  this,  I  must  confess,  that  I 
cannot  reconcile  with  candour  the  following  words  : 
/  knew  that  to  seek  religious  information  in  the  writings  of 


11 

Protestants,  was  to  incur  the  severest  censures  of  the 
church  I  belonged  to.     (Letter,  p.  14.) 

May  I  not  then  say  with  confidence,  that  rational 
investigation  is  as  open  to  Catholics,  as  to  any  other 
set  of  men  on  the  face  of  the  earth  ?  No ;  we  are  told 
there  still  remains  behind  a  powerful  check  to  this 
investigation.  This  article  of  our  belief,  that  "  the 
Roman  church  is  the  mother  and  mistress  of  all 
churches,  and  that  out  of  her  communion  no  salvation 
can  be  obtained,"  for  which  the  Chaplain  cites  the 
famous  creed  of  pope  Pius  IV.  (p.  7.)  makes  too  great 
an  impression  of  terror  on  the  mind,  to  suffer  an 
unrestrained  exertion  of  its  faculties.  Such  is  the 
imputation ;  and  it  being  extremely  odious  and  offen- 
sive, and  tending  to  disturb  the  peace  and  harmony 
subsisting  in  these  United  States  between  religionists 
of  all  professions  ;  you  will  allow  me  to  enter  fully 
into  it,  and  render,  if  I  can,  your  vindication  complete. 

I  begin  with  observing,  that  to  be  in  the  communion 
of  the  Catholic  church,  and  to  be  &  member  of  the  Catho- 
lic church,  are  two  very  distinct  things.  They  are  in 
the  communion  of  the  church,  who  are  united  in  the  pro- 
fession of  her  faith  and  participation  of  her  sacra- 
ments through  the  ministry  and  government  of  her 
lawful  pastors.*  But  the  members  of  the  Catholic 
church  are  all  those  who,  with  a  sincere  heart,  seek 
true  religion,  and  are  in  an  unfeigned  disposition  to 
embrace  the  truth  whenever  they  find  it.  Now,  it 
never  was  our  doctrine,  that  salvation  can  be  obtain- 
ed only  by  the  former ;  and  this  would  have  mani- 
festly appeared,  if  the  Chaplain,  instead  of  citing  pope 

*  Bellarm.  de  Eccl.  milit.  1.  3.  c.  % 


12 

Pius's  creed  from  his  memory,  or  some  unfair  copy, 
had  taken  the  pains  to  examine  a  faithful  transcript 
of  it.  These  are  the  words  of  the  obnoxious  creed, 
and  not  those  wrongfully  quoted  by  him,  which  are 
not  to  be  found  in  it.  After  enumerating  the  several 
articles  of  our  belief,  it  goes  on  thus  :  This  true 
Catholic  faith,  without  which  no  one  can  be  saved,  I  do 
at  this  present  firmly  profess  and  sincerely  hold,  &c. 
Here  is  nothing  of  the  necessity  of  communion  with  our 
church  for  salvation ;  nothing  that  is  not  professed  in 
the  public  liturgy  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  ; 
and  nothing,  I  presume,  but  what  is  taught  in  every 
Christian  society  on  earth,  viz.  that  Catholic  faith  is 
necessary  to  salvation.  The  distinction  between  be- 
ing a  member  of  the  Catholic  church,  and  of  the  commu- 
nion of  the  church,  is  no  modern  distinction,  but  a  doc- 
trine uniformly  taught  by  ancient  as  well  as  later 
divines.  What  is  said,  says  Bellarmine,  of  none  being 
saved  out  of  the  church,  must  be  understood  of  them,  who 
belong  not  to  it  either  in  fact  or  desire.*  I  shall  soon 
have  occasion  to  produce  other  authors  establishing 
this  same  point :  "  We  are  accused  of  great  uncha- 
ritableness  in  allowing  salvation  to  none  but  Catho- 
lics. But  this  also  is  a  mistaken  notion.  We  say,  I 
believe  no  more  than  do  all  other  Christian  societies. 
Religion  certainly  is  an  aifair  of  very  serious  consi- 
deration. When  therefore  a  man  either  neglects  to 
inform  himself;  or,  when  informed,  neglects  to  follow 
the  conviction  of  his  mind  ;  such  a  one,  we  say,  is  not 
in  the  way  of  salvation.  After  mature  inquiries,  if  I 
am  convinced,  that  the  religion  of  England  is  the  only 

*  Beljarm,  de  Eccl.  mil.  1. 3.  c.  3, 


true  one,  am  I  not  obliged  to  become   a  Protestant  ? 
In  similar  circumstances,  must  not  you   likewise  de- 
clare yourself  a  Catholic  ?     Our  meaning  is,  that  no 
one  can  be  saved  out  of  the  true  church  ;   and,  as  we 
consider  the  evidence  of  the  truth  of  our  religion  to 
be  great,  that  he,  who   will  not  embrace  the  truth 
when  he  sees  it,  deserves  not  to  be  happy.  God  how- 
ever is  the  searcher   of  hearts.     He  only  can  read 
those  internal  dispositions  on  which  rectitude  of  con- 
duct alone   depends."*     Let   any  one  compare  this 
explanation  of  our  doctrine  with  the  doctrine  of  Pro- 
testant divines  ;  and  discover  in  the  former,  if  he  Can, 
any  plainer  traces  of  the  savage  monster  intolerance, 
than  in  the  latter.     Dr.  Leland  is  now  before  me,  and 
after  transcribing  from  him,  I  shall  spare  myself  the 
trouble  of  collecting  the  many  other  similar  passages, 
which  I  remember  to  have   read  in  Protestant  di- 
vines.    "  It  seems  to  be  obvious,"   says  he,   "  to  the 
common  sense   and   reason  of  mankind,  that  if  God 
hath  given  a.  revelation,  or  discovery  of  his  will  con- 
cerning doctrines  or  laws  of  importance  to  our  duty 
and  happiness,  and  hath  caused  them  to  be  promul- 
gated with  such  evidence,  as  he  knoweth  to  be  suffi- 
cient to  convince  reasonable  and  well-disposed  minds 
that  will  carefully  attend  to  it,  he  hath  an  undoubted 
right  to  require  those  to  whom  this  revelation  is  pub- 
lished, to  receive  and  to  obey  it ;   and  if,  through  the 
influence   of  corrupt    affections   and    lusts,   those   to 
whom  this   revelation  is  made   known  refuse  to  re- 
ceive it,  he  can  justly  punish  them  for  their  culpable 
neglect,  obstinacy,  and  disobedience."! 

*  The  State  and  Behaviour  of  English  Catholics.— London  1780.  (p.  155—6.) 
fr  View  of  Deisticai  Writers,  Vol.  I.  let.  10. 


14 

Where  then  is  the  uncharitableness  peculiar  to 
Catholics  ?  Where  is  the  odious  tenet  that  dries  up 
the  springs  of  philanthropy,  and  chills  by  early  infu- 
sions of  bigotry  the  warm  feelings  of  benevolence  ?  (Let- 
ter, p.  13.)  I  am  ready  to  do  justice  to  the  humanity 
of  Protestants ;  I  acknowledge  with  pleasure  and 
admiration  their  many  charitable  institutions,  their 
acts  of  public  and  private  beneficence.  I  likewise,  as 
well  as  the  Chaplain,  have  the  happiness  to  live  in  ha- 
bits of  intimacy  and  friendship  with  many  valuable  Pro- 
testants;  (Let.  p.  9.;)  but  with  all  my  attachment  to 
their  persons,  and  respect  for  their  virtues,  I  have 
never  seen  nor  heard  of  the  works  of  Christian  mercy 
being  exercised  more  extensively,  more  generally,  or 
more  uninterruptedly,  than  by  many  members  of  our 
own  communion,  though  the  Chaplain  thinks  our 
minds  are  contracted  by  the  narrowness  of  a  system, 
(Let.  ibid.)  Let  him  recall  to  his  remembrance  the 
many  receptacles  he  has  seen  erected  in  Catholic 
countries  for  indigence  and  human  distress  in  every 
shape ;  the  tenderness  and  attention  with  which  the 
unfortunate  victims  of  penury  and  disease  are  there 
served,  not  by  mercenary  domestics,  as  elsewhere  : 
but  in  many  places  by  religious  men,  and  in  others, 
by  communities  of  women,  often  of  the  first  nobility, 
dedicating  their  whole  lives  to  this  loathsome  exer- 
cise of  humanity,  without  exoectation  of  any  reward 
on  this  side  the  grave.  Let  him  remember  how  many 
men  of  genius  he  has  known  to  devote  themselves 
with  a  like  disinterestedness  to  the  irksome  employ- 
ment of  training  youth  in  the  first  rudiments  of  sci- 
ence ;  and  others  encountering  incredible  hardships, 
and,  as  it  were,  burying  themselves  alive,  to  bring 


15 

»aVages  to  a  social  life,  and  afterwards  to  form  them 
to  Christian  virtue.  To  what  society  of  Christians 
does  that  body  of  men  belong,  who  bind  themselves 
by  the  sacred  obligation  of  a  vow,  even  to  part  with 
their  own  liberty,  if  necessary,  by  offering  it  up  in- 
stead of,  and  for  the  redemption  of  their  fellow  Chris- 
tians groaning  under  the  slavery  of  the  piratical 
states  of  Barbary  ?  How  often  has  the  Chaplain  seen 
the  bread  of  consolation  and  the  words  of  eternal  life 
carried  into  the  gloomy  mansions  of  the  imprisoned, 
before  the  humane  Howard  had  awakened  the  sen- 
sibility of  England  to  this  important  object  ?  Need  I 
mention  the  heroical  charity  of  a  Charles  Borromeo, 
of  a  Thomas  of  Villanova,  of  Marseilles'  good  bishop, 
and  so  many  others,  who  devoted  themselves  to  the 
public  relief,  during  dreadful  visitations  of  the  plague, 
ivhen  nature  sickened,  and  each  gale  was  death  ?  The 
Chaplain's  recollection  will  enable  him  to  add  great- 
ly to  these  instances  of  expanded  benevolence ;  and  1 
would  fain  ask,  if  the  virtues  from  which  they  spring, 
are  not  formed  in  the  bosom  of  the  Catholic  church. 
Can  a  religion,  which  invariably  and  unceasingly 
gives  them  birth  and  cultivation,  be  unfriendly  to  hu- 
manity? Can  so  bad  a  tree  bear  such  excellent  fruit  ? 

You  may  perhaps  think,  that  enough  has  been  said 
to  free  you  from  the  imputation  of  uncharitableness 
in  restraining  salvation  to  those  of  your  own  commu- 
nion. But  you  will  excuse  me  for  dwelling  longer  on 
it,  conceiving  it,  as  I  do,  of  the  utmost  importance  to 
charity  and  mutual  forbearance,  to  render  our  doctrine 
on  this  head  as  perspicuous  as  I  am  able. 

First,  then,  It  has  been  always  and  uniformly  assert- 
ed by    our  divines,  that   baptism,  actual   baptism,  is 


16 

essentially  requisite  to  initiate  us  into  the  communion 
of  the  church  ;  this  notwithstanding,  their  doctrine  is 
not  less  uniform,  and  the  council  of  Trent  (sess.  6.  ch. 
4.)  has  expressly  established  it,  that  salvation  maybe 
obtained  without  actual  baptism  ;  thus  then  it  appears* 
that  we  not  only  may,  but  are  obliged  to  believe,  that 
out  of  our  communion  salvation  may  be  obtained. 

Secondly,  With  the  same  unanimity  our  divines 
define  heresy  to  be,  not  merely  a  mistaken  opinion  in 
a  matter  of  faith,  but  an  obstinate  adherence  to  that 
opinion  :  not  barely  an  error  of  judgment,  but  an  error 
arising  from  a  perverse  affection  of  the  will.  Hence 
they  infer,  that  he  is  no  heretic,  who,  though  he  hold 
false  opinions  in  matters  of  faith,  yet  remains  in  an 
habitual  disposition  to  renounce  those  opinions,  when- 
ever he  discovers  them  to  be  contrary  to  the  doctrines 
of  Jesus  Christ. 

These  principles  of  our  theology  are  so  different 
from  the  common  misrepresentations  of  them,  and  even 
from  the  statement  of  them  by  the  late  Chaplain  of 
Worcester,  that  some,  I  doubt,  will  suspect  them  to 
be  those  palliatives  he  mentions,  to  disguise  the  severity 
of  an  unpopular  tenet,  to  which,  he  says,  our  late 
ingenious  apologists  in  England  have  had  recourse, 
(p.  10.)  But  you  shall  see,  that  they  were  always 
our  principles,  not  only  in  England,  but  throughout 
the  Christian  world;  and  I  will  be  bold  to  say,  that 
so  far  from  being  contradicted  in  every  public  catechism, 
and  profession  of  faith,  as  is  suggested  in  the  same 
page  of  the  Chaplain's  letter,  they  are  not  impeached  in 
any  one  ;  so  far  from  our  teaching  the  impossibility  of 
salvation  out  of  the  communion  of  our  church,  as 
much  as  we  teach  transubstantiation,  (Letter  p.  10.) 
no  divine,  worthy  to  be  called  such*  teaches  it  at  all. 


17 

I  will  set  out  with  the  French  divines,  and  place 
him  first,  whose  reputation,  I  presume,  is  highest. 
Thus  then  does  the  illustrious  Bergier  express  him- 
self, in  his  admirable  work,  entitled,  Deism  refuted  by 
itself: — "  It  is  false,  that  we  say  to  any  one,  that  he  will 
be  damned ;  to  do  so,  would  be  contrary  to  our  ge- 
neral doctrine  relating  to  the  different  sects  out  of 
the  bosom  of  the  church.  First,  with  respect  to  here- 
tics" (the  author  here  means  those  who,  though  not 
heretics  in  the  rigorous  sense  of  the  word,  go  under 
that  general  denomination)  "  who  are  baptized  and 
believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  we  are  persuaded,  that  all  of 
them,  who  with  sincerity  remain  in  their  error;  who 
through  inculpable  ignorance  believe  themselve*s  to  be 
in  the  way  of  salvation  ;  who  would  be  ready  to  em- 
brace the  Roman  Catholic  church,  ifGod  were  pleased 
to  make  known  to  them,  that  she  alone  is  the  true 
church  ;  we  are  persuaded,  that  these  candid  and 
upright  persons,  •from  the  disposition  of  their  hearts, 
are  children  of  the  Catholic  church.  Such  is  the 
opinion  of  all  divines  since  St.  Augustin."* 

The  bishop  of  Puy,  whose  learning  and  merits  are 
so  much  known  and  felt  in  the  Gallican  church,  writes 
thus :  "  To  define  a  heretic  accurately,  it  is  not 
enough  to  say,  that  he  made  choice  of  his  doctrine, 
but  it  must  be  added  that  he  is  obstinate  in  his  choice."f 

The  language  of  German  divines  is  the  same,  or 
stronger,  if  possible.  "  Heresy,"  says  Reuter,  "  in  a 
Christian  or  baptized  person,  is  a  wilful  and  obstinate 
error  of  the  understanding,  opposite  to  some  verity  of 
faith. — So  that  three  things  are  requisite  to  constitute 

*  Bergier,  Deisme  refuted  par  lui  meme — 1.  par.  let.  4. 
t  Instruct,  pastorale  sur  1'heresie — page  67.  edit,  in  4to? 

3 


18 

heresy:  1st.  In  the  understanding,  an  erroneous  opi- 
nion against  faith.  2dly.  In  the  will,  liberty  and  ob- 
stinacy." The  third  condition  is,  that  the  erring- 
person  be  a  baptized  Christian ;  otherwise  his  sin 
against  faith  is  called  infidelity,  not  heresy.  After 
which  our  author  thus  goes  on  :  "  The  obstinacy  re- 
quisite to  heresy,  is  a  deliberate  and  determined  reso- 
lution to  dissent  from  a  truth  revealed,  and  sufficient- 
ly proposed  by  the  church,  or  some  other  general 
rule  of  faith."*  The  same  doctrine  is  delivered  by 
all  the  other  German  divines  to  whom  I  now  can  have 
recourse,  and  they  cite  to  the  same  purpose  Suarez, 
&c. 

If  the  doctrine  imputed  to  us  could  be  found  any 
where,  it  would  probably  be  in  Spain  and  Italy  :  But 
you  have  just  heard  Suarez,  the  first  of  Spanish  theo- 
logians, quoted  to  disprove  it ;  and  with  respect  to 
Italy,  Bellarmine's  opinion  has  been  stated ;  to  which 
I  shall  add  that  of  St.  Thomas  of  Aquin,  whose  great 
authority  and  sanctity  of  life  have  procured  him  the 
title  of  the  angel  of  the  school.  He  teaches  then, 
"  that  even  they,  to  whom  the  gospel  was  never  an- 
nounced, will  be  excused  from  the  sin  of  infidelity, 
though  justly  punishable  for  others  they  may  commit,  or 
for  that  in  which  they  were  born.  But  if  any  of  them 
conduct  themselves  in  the  best  manner  they  are  able," 
(by  conforming,  I  presume,  to  the  laws  of  nature  and 
directions  of  right  reason,)  "  God  will  provide  for 
them  in  his  mercy."t 


*  Reuter  theol.  moral,  p.  2.  trac.  1.  quags.  3. 

1"  Si  qui  tamen  eorum  fecissent,  quod  m  se  est,  Dominus  eis  secundu.ua  suautt 
misericordiam  providisset,  mittendo  eis  prsedicatorera  tidei,  sicut  Petrum  Cor- 
nelio.     Comm.  in  cap.  10.  epis.  ad  Rom.  lect.  3. 


19 

You  will  observe,  that  in  the  passage  quoted  from 
Bergier,  he  says  that  the  doctrine  delivered  by  him 
has  been  the  opinion  of  all  divines  since  St.  Augustin. 
This  holy  father,  who  usually  expresses  himself  with 
great  force  and  severity  against  real  heretics,  requires 
nevertheless  the  same  conditions  of  obstinacy  and  per- 
verseness,  as  the  divines  above  mentioned.  "  I  call 
him  only  a  heretic,"  says  he,  "  who,  when  the  doc- 
trine of  Catholic  faith  is  manifested  to  him,  prefers 
resistance."*  Again  :  "  They  are  not  to  be  ranked 
with  heretics  who  without  pertinacious  a?iimosity  main- 
tain their  opinion,  though  false  and  mischievous,  es- 
pecially if  they  did  not  broach  it  themselves  with  for- 
ward presumption,  but  received  it  from  their  mistak- 
en and  seduced  parents ;  and  if  they  seek  truth  with 
earnest  solicitude,  and  a  readiness  to  retract  when 
they  discover  it."f 

To  these  decisive  authorities  of  St.  Augustin  might 
be  added  others,  as  well  from  him,  as  from  Jerom, 
Tertullian,  &c. ;  but  surely  enough  has  been  said  to 
convince  you,  that  we  have  no  need  to  shelter  our 
doctrines  under  the  covering  of  modern  glosses,  and 
that  the  language  of  English  and  other  divines  of  our 
church,  has,  in  this  respect,  been  perfectly  uniform. 

Yet  in  spite  of  this  uniformity,  we  must  still  have 
obtruded  upon  us  the  doctrine  of  confining  salvation 
to  those  only  of  our  own  communion ;  for,  without  it, 

*  Nondum  haereticum  dico,  nisi  manifestata  doctrina  Catholics  fidei. 
resistere  maluerit.     De  bapt.  contr.  Donat.  lib.  4.  c.  16. 

t  Qui  sententiam  suam,  quamvis  falsam  atque  perversam,  nulla  pertinaci 
animositate  del'endunt,  pra-sertim  quam  non  audacia  pnesumptionis  sua;  pe- 
pererunt,  sed  a  seductis  atque  in  errorcm  lapsis  parentibus  acceperunt,  quae- 
runt  autem  cauta  sollicitudine  veritatem,  corrigi  parati  cum  invenerint, 
nequaquam  sunt  inter  hareticos  deputandi.  Aug.  epis.  43.  ad  Glorium  & 
Eleusium. 


20 

the  boasted  infallibility  of  a  living  authority,,  that  is,  of 
our  church,  is  no  more.  (Let.  p.  12.)  Why  so  ?  Be- 
cause, "  whoever  admits  this  authority  as  an  un- 
doubted article  of  Christian  religion,  must  necessari- 
ly pronounce  condemnation  upon  those  who  wilfully 
reject  it."  (Let.  ibid.)  Therefore,  we  must  likewise 
pronounce  condemnation  upon  those  who  reject  it 
through  ignorance  and  inculpable  error.  Is  this  infer- 
ence logical  ?  And  yet,  must  it  not  follow  from  the 
premises,  to  make  any  thing  of  the  Chaplain's  argu- 
ment ? 

When  I  come  to  consider  how  a  man  of  genius  and 
extensive  knowledge,  as  he  surely  is,  could  bring  him- 
self to  think,  that  we  hold  the  doctrine  imputed  to  us, 
I  am  at  a  loss  to  account  for  it.  He  received  his  edu- 
cation in  a  school,  and  from  men  who  have  been 
charged,  unjustly  indeed,  both  by  Protestants  and 
some  Catholics,  with  giving  too  great  latitude  to  the 
doctrine  of  invincible,  or  inculpable  ignorance.  He 
heard  from  them,  that,  in  certain  cases,  this  ignorance 
extended  even  to,  and  excused  from,  the  guilt  of  vio- 
lating the  law  of  nature.*     Can  he  then  imagine  that 

*  I  will  set  down  two  propositions,  which  the  Chaplain  will  remember  to 
have  been  generally  taught  in  the  schools  of  theology,  which  we  both  frequent- 
ed. 1.  Possibilis  est  ignoranlia  invincibilis  juris  natures  quoad  conclusiones 
remoliores  a  primis  principiis.  2.  Ignoranlia  invincibilis  juris  naturaz  excusaf 
a peccato.  I  will  take  this  occasion  to  thank  my  former  friend  for  the  justice 
he  has  done  (p.  15.  note)  to  the  body  of  men  to  which  in  our  happier  days  we 
both  belonged  ;  and  whom  the  world  will  regret,  when  the  want  of  their  ser- 
vices will  recall  the  memory  of  them,  and  the  voice  of  envy,  of  obloquy,  of 
misrepresentation,  will  be  heard  no  more.  I  am  sorry  he  mixed  one  word  with 
their  commendations,  which  cannot  be  admitted  ;  and  that  he  should  ascribe 
ironically  to  the  tender  mercy  and  justice  of  the  church  those  oppressions  and 
acts  of  violence,  in  which  she  had  no  part,  and  which  were  only  imputable  to 
the  unworthy  condescension,  and,  I  fear,  sinister  views  of  an  artful  acd  tempo- 
rizing pontiff. 


21 

we  deem  it  insufficient  to  exempt  from  criminality  the 
disbelief  of  positive  facts,  such  as  the  divine  revela- 
tion of  certain  articles  of  religion  ? 

For  all  this,  he  still  labours  to  fix  on  us  this  ob- 
noxious tenet,  with  a  perseverance  which  carries  with 
it  an  air  of  animosity.  He  says,  that  our  controvert- 
ists  make  use  of  the  argument  cited  in  his  10th  page, 
Protestants  allow  salvation  to  Catholics  ;  Catholics 
allow  it  not  to  Protestants ;  therefore  the  religion  of 
Catholics  is  the  safest.  Hence  he  infers,  that  we 
deny  salvation  to  all,  but  those  of  our  own  commu- 
nion. 

If  his  inference  were  conclusive,  I  should  have 
cause  to  bring  a  similar  charge  of  cruelty  and  uncha- 
ritableness  against  Protestants.  For  their  great 
champion  Chillingworth,  answering  the  very  objection 
stated  by  the  Chaplain,  expressly  teaches,  that  Catholics 
allow,  that  ignorance  and  repentance  may  excuse  a  Pro- 
testant from  damnation,  though  dying  in  his  error  ;  "  and 
this,"  continues  he,  "  is  all  the  charity  which,  by  your 
own  (his  opponent's)  confession  also,  the  most  favour- 
able Protestants  allow  to  papists."*  To  this  I  shall 
add,  that  both  Chillingworth  and  the  Chaplain  appear 
to  misapprehend  the  argument  of  our  controvertists  ; 
which  is  this  :  You  Protestants  allow  our  church  to 
be  a  true  church ;  that  it  retains  all  the  fundamental 
articles  of  religion,  without  teaching  any  damnable 
error ;  your  universities  have  declared,  on  a  solemn 
consultation,  that  a  person,  not  pretending  to  the  plea 
of  invincible  ignorance,  may  safely  leave  the  Protest- 
ant church,  and  become  a  member  of  ours,  because  it 

*  Chillingworth's  Religion  of  Protestants,  &c.  ch.  7.  p.  306. 


22 

is  a  safe  way  to  salvation.  The  Chaplain  knows,  that 
many  of  the  most  eminent  Protestant  writers  have 
asserted,  that  all  the  essentials  of  true  religion  are  to 
be  found  in  our  communion;  and  surely  the  possibili- 
ty of  obtaining  salvation  is  one  of  these  essentials  ;  he 
knows,  that  on  a  great  occasion  this  was  the  determi- 
nation of  the  Protestant  university  of  Helmstadt.  But 
on  the  other  hand,  Catholic  divines  always  teach, 
that  the  true  church  of  Christ  being  only  one,  incul- 
pable error  alone  can  justify  a  Protestant  for  continu- 
ing out  of  her  communion ;  and  therefore  that  it  is 
safest  to  become  a  Catholic.  Such  is  the  argument 
employed  by  some  of  our  controvertists.  I  do  not 
undertake  to  make  it  good,  but  I  mean  only  to  prove, 
by  stating  it  fairly,  that  the  Chaplain  is  not  warranted 
to  flraw  from  it  that  odious  consequence,  with  which 
we  are  unjustly  charged. 

If  then  we  do  not  hold  the  doctrine  of  exclusive 
salvation,  can  the  horrible  tenet  of  persecution,  which, 
he  says,  is  the  consequence  of  it,*  be  imputed  to  us  ? 
I  do  not  indeed  see  their  necessary  connexion ;  but  I 
know,  that  Protestants  and  Catholics  equally  deviate 
from  the  spirit  of  their  religion,  when  fanaticism  and 
fiery  zeal,  would  usurp  that  control  over  men's  minds, 
to  which  conviction  and  fair  argument  have  an  exclu- 
sive right. 

You  now  see,  that  neither  the  prohibition  of  reading- 
heretical  books,  nor  our  doctrine  concerning  the  possi- 
bility of  salvation,  are  any  hindrances  to  free  inquiry 
in  matters  of  religion.  If  for  so  many  years  they 
withheld  the  Chaplain  from  making"it,  he  was  with- 

*  Let,  p.  11,  12, 


23 

held  by  unnecessary  fears,  and  a  phantom  of  his  own 
imagination.  Another  cause  too  concurred,  as  he 
tells  us,  to  hold  him  in  ignorance.  J  am  not  ashamed, 
says  he,  to  confess,  that  it  ivas  the  claim  to  infallibility, 
which  prevented  me  so  long  from  examining  the  tenets  of 
the  Roman  church.  (Let.  p.  22.)  Here,  indeed,  if 
he  means  the  claim  of  infallibility,  as  it  rests  upon 
proofs  of  every  kind,  I  do  not  wonder  at  its  prevent- 
ing him  from  examining  minutely  all  the  difficulties  to 
which  some  of  our  tenets  singly  may  be  liable.  For 
if  things  beyond  our  comprehension  are  proposed  to 
our  belief,  the  immediate  consideration  should  be,  by 
whom  are  they  proposed  ?  When  the  authority  which 
proposes  them  claims  to  be  infallible,  reason  suggests 
this  farther  inquiry,  on  what  grounds  is  this  claim 
established  ?  Is  it  found  to  be  established  on  solid  and 
convincing  proofs  ?  Then  certainly  it  becomes  agree- 
able to  the  dictates  of  reason,  and  the  soundest  prin- 
ciples of  morality,  to  assent  to  the  doctrines  so  propos- 
ed, though  we  may  not  fully  comprehend  them,  nor  be 
able  to  give  a  satisfactory  answer  to  every  difficulty 
that  human  ingenuity  may  allege  against  them.  This 
is  the  mode  of  reasoning  used  by  all  defenders  of  re- 
vealed religion  ;  they  first  apply  themselves  to  prove 
the  divine  revelation  of  scripture;  having  done  this, 
they  then  infer,  that  its  mysteries  and  unsearchable 
doctrines  must  be  received,  as  coming  from  an  uner- 
ring authority.  And  so  far  the  Chaplain  will  sureh 
agree  with  me. 

I  cannot,  therefore,  see,  why  he  speaks  so  contemp- 
tuously of  Bellarmine's  creed,  (p.  17.)  that  he  believ- 
ed what  the  church  believed  ;  and  that  the  church  believed 
what  he  believed.  For  what  do  these  words  import  morn 


24 

or  less,  than  that  he  conformed  his  faith  to  that  of  the 
church;  that  to  her  decisions  he  submitted  his  judg- 
ment and  belief  so  entirely,  that  the  propositions  re- 
cited from  him  were,  in  the  language  of  logicians, 
convertible.  And  is  not  this  the  duty  of  every  per- 
son who  believes  the  church  to  be  infallible,  as  that 
great  cardinal  certainly  did,  after  examining,  if  ever 
man  did,  all  that  was  written  against  her  infallibility. 
Where  lies  the  difference  between  this  collier-like 
(Let.  ibid.)  profession  of  faith,  and  that  of  St.  Augus- 
tin  conforming  his  religion  to  that  of  the  fathers,  his 
predecessors.  /  believe,  says  he,  what  they  believe  ;  I 
hold  what  they  hold  ;  I  preach  what  they  preach.* 

The  Chaplain  goes  on  to  tell  the  Catholics  of  the 
city  of  Worcester,  that  "  if  a  man's  belief  be  not  ra- 
tional ;  if  he  submit  to  human  authority  without  weigh- 
ing or  understanding  the  doctrines  which  it  inculcates, 
this  belief  is  not  faith — It  is  credulity,  it  is  weak- 
ness."t  Who  doubts  it  ?  But  if  he  submit  to  divine 
authority,  though  he  do  not  fully  comprehend  the 
doctrines  delivered,  is  this  weakness  and  credulity  ? 
or  is  it  the  rational  obedience  of  faith  ?  From  his  own 
account  of  the  promises  of  Christ,  (p.  28.)  his  church 
can  never  fail  in  teaching  the  fundamental  and  necessa- 
ry articles  of  religion,  and  the  great  and  essential  tenets 
expressed  in  the  apostles'*  creed.  Is  it  then  weakness 
and  credulity,  or  rather  true  wisdom,  to  believe  with 
entire  submission  these  fundamental  articles  and  essential 
tenets?  For  the  Chaplain  has  told  us,  that  they  are 
proposed  by  an  authority,  which  the  promises  of 
Christ,  so  far  at  least,  guard  from  error  and  delusion. 

*  Aug.  J.  H-  coDt.  JnlMHk.  c.  r,  i-  Let.  p.  17. 


25 

And  yet  amongst  these  tenets,  there  are  some  beyond 
the  reach  of  human  comprehension.  The  Trinity, 
the  mystery  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  his 
being  conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  his  crucifixion 
and  death,  his  descending  into  hell,  are,  I  presume, 
those  doctrines  of  Christianity  which  the  Chaplain 
deems  fundamental ;  for  they  are  all  contained  in  the 
apostles'  creed.  He  is  certainly  unable  to  weigh  or 
understand  them.  Nevertheless,  he  acts  rationally  in  ad- 
mitting and  believing  them,  because  he  conceives  them 
to  be  revealed  by  an  infallible  guide.  Can  it  then  be 
folly  and  credulity  in  you  to  believe,  for  a  similar  rea- 
son, these  and  all  other  articles  of  your  religion  ? 

The  vainest,  therefore,  of  all  controversies,  and  the 
most  ineffectual  for  the  discovery  of  truth,  is,  to  dis- 
pute on  the  metaphysical  nature  of  the  doctrines  of 
Christianity.  For  instance,  to  prove  the  Trinity, 
should  we  set  about  reading  lectures  on  the  divine 
persons  and  essence,  on  the  eternal  and  necessary 
generation  of  the  word,  &c.  ?  This  indeed  would  be 
folly,  and  we  should  speak  a  language  unintelligible 
to  our  hearers  and  ourselves.  In  this,  and  all  similar 
cases,  the  only  rational  method  is,  to  show  that  the 
contested  doctrine  is  proposed  to  our  belief  by  an  in- 
fallible authority.  This  undoubtedly  would  be  the 
Chaplain's  method  in  asserting  against  Arians,  Soci- 
nians,  and  modern  sectaries,  the  Trinity,  the  Incar- 
nation, and  the  eternity  of  future  punishments ;  and 
such  likewise  is  the  method,  by  which  we  endeavour 
to  establish  the  tenets,  which  he  calls  the  discrimina- 
ting doctrines  of  our  church. 

Apply  these  principles  to  all  his  reasonings  in  his 
23d,  24th,  and  25th  pages,  and  see  what  they  will 

4 


26 

come  to.  Set  him  in  competition  with  a  Deist,  an 
Arian,  a  Socinian;  and  how  will  he  extricate  himself 
from  his  own  arguments,  when  urged  to  subvert  the 
infallibility  of  scripture,  or  the  Christian  doctrines  of 
original  sin,  of  the  Trinity,  the  Incarnation  and  re- 
demption of  mankind  ?  Religion  and  reason  can  never 
be  at  variance,  will  they  say  wrth  the  Chaplain,  because 
the  most  rational  religion  must  always  be  the  best.  (P.  25.) 
The  language  of  reason  was  never  yet  rejected  with  impu- 
nity— she  will  be  heard — she  must  be  respected,  &c.  (ibid.) 
Do  then  some  controverted  texts  of  scripture  make  the 
Trinity  and  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  as  evident 
to  reason  as  it  is  plain  to  the  most  ordinary  capacity,  that 
three  divine  persons  really  distinct  cannot  be  one  and 
the  same  God  ?  or  that  the  eternal  and  immortal 
God  cannot  become  a  mortal  and  suffering  man, 
which  is  a  stumbling  block  to  the  Jews,  and  to  the  Greeks 
foolishness* 

Will  the  Chaplain  reply  to  the  Deist,  and  tell  him, 
that  the  infallibility  of  scripture  warrants  his  belief  of 
these  seemingly  absurd  tenets  ?  He  will  be  answered, 
that  he  begs  the  question  ;  and  in  his  own  language, 
that  reason  assures  him,  (the  Deist,)  with  greater  evidence 
than  the  infallibility  of  scripture  is  proved,  that  the 
Almighty  requires  not  our  belief  of  doctrines  which  stand 
in  direct  contradiction  to  the  only  means  he  has  allowed 
us  of  arriving  at  truth — our  senses  and  understanding. 

Nor  will  the  Deist  stop  here  ;  he  will  add,  that  the 
pretended  infallibility  of  scripture,  must  prevent  the 
Chaplain  from  examining  the  tenets  of  the  Christian 
church,     Sheltered  under  the  garb  of  so  gorgeous  a  pro- 

*  1  Cor.  i.  %}, 


•27 

mgative,  impressed  upon  the  yielding  mind  of  youth  by 
men  of  sense  and  virtue  ;  backed  moreover  by  the  splendour 
of  supposed  miracles  and  the  horrors  of  damnation,  opi- 
nions the  most  absurd  and  contradictory  must  frequently 
dazzle  and  overawe  the  understanding.  Amidst  the  fas- 
cinating glare  of  so  mighty  a  privilege,  the  eye  of  reason 
becomes  dim  and  inactive.  (P.  23.)  Can  the  Chaplain, 
or  any  other  person,  tell  us,  why  a  Bolingbroke,  or  a 
Hume,  had  not  as  good  a  right  to  use  this  argument 
against  the  general  doctrines  of  Christianity,  as  the 
Chaplain  had  to  urge  it  against  the  discriminating 
doctrines  of  the  Catholic  church  ? 

Such  are  the  difficulties  in  which  men  involve  them- 
selves, by  extending  the  exercise  of  reason  to  matters 
beyond  its  competency.  Let  this  excellent  gift  of  our 
provident  and  bountiful  Creator  be  employed,  as  has 
been  said  before,  in  examining  the  grounds  for  believ- 
ing the  scriptures  to  be  infallible  ;  but  let  it  go  no 
farther,  when  that  infallibility  is  fully  evinced.  In  the 
same  manner,  let  your  reason  investigate  with  the  ut- 
most attention  and  sincere  desire  of  discovering  truth, 
the  motives  for  and  against  the  church's  infallibility ; 
but  if  your  inquiries  terminate  in  a  full  conviction  of 
her  having  received  this  great  prerogative  from 
Jesus  Christ,  the  author  and  finisher  of  our  faith,  sub- 
mit with  respect  and  docility  to  her  decisions.  The 
Chaplain  himself,  when  less  wrapt  in  extacy  with  the 
beauties  of  reason,  can  acknowledge  this:  show  me, 
says  he,  the  proofs  of  this  infallibility,  and  if  I  do  not  ad- 
mit them  with  every  faculty  of  my  soul,  you  have  my  leave 
to  brand  me  with  the  pride  of  Lucifer..     (P.  23.) 

You  will  not  expect  me  to  enter  fully  into  this  sub- 
ject, and  point  out  either  to  you  or  the  Chaplain,  the 


28 

proofs  which  he  requires.  Neither  my  leisure  nor 
inclination,  now  allow  me  to  undertake,  what  has  been 
done  by  much  abler  hands.  The  Chaplain,  and  you 
too,  I  hope,  know  where  to  look  for  these  proofs.  Let 
him  peruse  the  controversial  works  of  Bellarmine, 
Bossuet,  Nicole  and  Bergier,  Mumford's  Question  of 
Questions,  Manning's  and  Hawarden's  writings  on 
this  subject ;  let  him  contrast  them  with  Albertinus 
and  Claude ;  with  Chillingworth,  Usher,  and  Bishop 
Hurd.  There  is  no  answering  for  the  impressions 
which  the  minds  of  different  men  may  receive  from 
perusing  the  same  authors.  I  can  only  say,  for  my 
own  part,  that  as  far  as  my  reading  on  this  subject 
has  extended,  I  have  generally  found,  on  one  side, 
candour  in  stating  the  opposite  doctrine,  fairness  in 
quotations,  clearness  and  fulness  in  the  answers,  and 
consistency  in  maintaining  and  defending  controvert- 
ed points.  On  the  other  hand,  I  have  often  met  with 
gross  misrepresentation,  unfair  quotations,  partial 
answers,  and  inconsistency  of  character  in  the  con- 
trovertist ;  impugning  and  defending  sometimes  on  the 
principles  of  a  Protestant,  sometimes  on  those  of  a  So- 
cinian  or  Deist,  sometimes,  pretending  to  model  his  re- 
ligion on  the  belief  of  the  four  first  ages  of  Chris- 
tianity ;  and  at  other  times  finding  corruptions  imme- 
diately after,  if  not  co-eval  with  the  apostolical  times. 

On  this  subject,  therefore,  whatever  disadvantage 
it  may  be  to  our  cause,  I  shall  confine  myself  solely  to 
the  defensive,  and  endeavour  to  satisfy  you,  that  the 
Chaplain  has  given  no  sufficient  reason  to  shake  the 
stability  of  your  faith,  with  respect"  to  the  infallibility 
of  the  church. 

He  observes,  that  the  few  scriptural  texts,  "which 


29 

seem  to  countenance  infallibility,  appeared  no  longer 
conclusive  than  he  refused  to  examine  them.''''  (P.  27.) 
Why  he  ever  refused  to  examine  them  he  is  yet  to  ex- 
plain ;  especially  as  the  duty  of  his  profession,  and  the 
particular  course  of  his  studies,  called  for  a  more 
attentive  and  fuller  examination  of  them,  than  the 
generality  of  Christians  are  obliged  to.  Surely  he 
does  not  mean  to  insinuate,  that  he  was  ever  discou- 
raged from,  or  deprived  of  the  means  of  making  in- 
quiry. Nor  do  I  know  why  he  mentions  only  a  few 
texts,  as  countenancing  the  doctrine  of  infallibility, 
since  the  writers  above  named  allege  so  many  both  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testament.  The  author  of  the 
Catholic  Scripturist,  whom  the  Chaplain  might  have 
found  an  adversary  worthy  of  his  Chillingworth  and 
Usher,  enumerates  thirty  texts  to  prove  this  point,  be- 
sides others,  to  which  he  refers.  Let  us  however 
hear  the  Chaplain's  animadversions  on  the  few  he 
has  thought  proper  to  consider. 

Amongst  other  proofs  of  her  infallibility,  the  Ca- 
tholic church  alleges  these  words  of  Christ  to  St.  Peter, 
(Matth.  xvi.  18.)  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock 
I  will  build  my  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  pre- 
vail against  it.  The  Chaplain  observes  (P.  28.)  that 
this  text  is  wrongly  translated,  and  that  the  Greek 
word  hades  manifestly  imports  death,  and  not  hell. 
The  alteration  is  not  very  material  in  itself,  and  might 
well  pass  unnoticed,  were  it  not  for  the  sake  of  showing 
how  unsafe  it  is  to  trust  to  private  interpretation  of 
scripture,  in  opposition  to  the  general  sense  and  un- 
derstanding of  the  church  in  all  its  ages.  The  Chap- 
lain has  taken  up  this  interpretation  from  Besa,  who, 
\  believe,  first  suggested  it.     But  I  would  fain  ask 


30 

these  sagacious  Greek  critics,  whether  hell  is  not 
meant  by  that  place,  out  of  which  the  rich  man  (Luke 
xvi.)  lifted  up  his  eyes,  and  seeing  Lazarus,  wished 
he  might  be  allowed  to  cool  with  water  his  tongue  ; 
for  / am  tormented,  said  he,  in  tkis  flame*  Was  not 
hell  that  place  of  torments,  which  he  wished  his  breth- 
ren might  be  warned  to  avoid.  (Ver  28.)  Now  what 
says  the  Greek  text  in  this  place  ?  And  in  hell, 
a  tu  *<f»,  lifting  up  his  eyes  when  he  was  in  torments, 
he  saw  Abraham  afar  off.  If  I  did  not  deem  this  scrip- 
ture passage  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  word  hades 
does  not  manifestly  import  death,  1  could  add  many 
others  equally  conclusive  ;  and  could  support  them 
with  the  authority  of  some  of  the  best  Greek  authors, 
as  well  as  of  -Calvin,  and  even  of  Besa,  in  contradic- 
tion to  himself.  Among  the  moderns,  the  Chaplain 
will  not  dispute  the  palm  of  Hebrew  and  Greek  lite- 
rature with  Dr.  Lowth,  now  bishop  of  London,  or 
with  his  learned  commentator,  professor  Michael  is  of 
Gottingen.  Let  him  read  the  Bishop's  elegant  work 
de  sacra  Poesi  Hebrmorum, prazlect '.  7.;  and  the  professor 
in  his  annotations  on  that  praslection,  and  he  will 
find  them  both  decided  in  their  opinion,  that  the 
Greek  word  hades,  as  well  as  its  correspondent  He- 
brew one,  denotes  not  death,  but  the  subterraneous 
receptacle  of  departed  souls,  which  is  pointedly  ex- 
pressive of  the  popular  idea  of  hell. 

But  let  us  admit  the  Chaplain's  interpretation  ;  let 
Christ's  words  import,  in  their  obvious  sense,  that  the 
church  shall  never  fail,  not  that  she  shall  never  err. 
Does  he  not  know,  that  the  church  fails  principally 

*  Luke  xvi.  24. 


31 

by  erring  ?  How  did  she  fail  in  the  countries  over- 
run with  Arianisra  ?  Was  it  not  by  error  in  faith  ? 
and  so  in  all  countries  corrupted  by  heresy.  Thus 
likewise  would  the  whole  visible  church  have  failed, 
had  she  proposed  any  error  to  be  believed  as  an  ar- 
ticle of  faith.  "  For  to  do  this  is  to  propose  a  lie} 
as  upheld  by  divine  authority  ;  which  is  to  fall  no  less 
foully  than  he  should  fall,  who  should  teach  God  to 
be  an  affirmer  and  confirmer  of  lies.  For  whatso- 
ever point  any  church  held,  as  a  point  of  their  faith, 
they  held  it  as  a  divine  verity,  affirmed  and  revealed 
by  God.  Therefore,  if,  in  any  age,  the  visible  church 
held  any  error  for  a  point  of  faith,  it  did  fail  most 
miserably."* 

The  Chaplain's  charge  of  unfaithful  translation  of 
scripture  being  thus  removed,  let  us  examine  the 
meaning  he  gives  to  the  promises  of  Christ.  The 
obvious  one,  he  says,  is  only  this,  "  that  neither  the 
subtlety  of  infernal  spirits,  nor  the  passions  of  men< 
nor  the  violence  of  both,  shall  ever  succeed  in  over- 
turning his  religion,  to  which  he  has  been  pleased  to 
annex  perpetuity.  However  feeble  and  disordered  his 
church  may  be  at  times,  the  powers  of  death  shall 
never  overcome  her.  She  shall  then  only  cease  to 
exist,  when  time  shall  be  no  more."  (P.  28.)  If  ever 
confident  assertion  stood  in  the  place  of  solid  argu- 
ment, here  surely  is  an  instance  of  it.  What  ! 
Does  Christ's  promise  to  his  church  obviously  convey 
the  meaning  imported  in  the  Chaplain's  exposition, 
particularly  in  the  first  member  of  the  second  sen- 
tence of  it,  when  there  is  not  a  single  word  to  justify 

8  ATrimfnn],  Ctup=t.  of  Qupst  cprt.  1." 


32 

that  meaning  ?  The  promise  is  unlimited  and  uncon- 
ditional ;  what  right  therefore  has  he  to  limit  it  ?  or 
if  he  have,  why  has  not  any  one  of  us  an  equal  right 
to  limit  Christ's  promises  to  teach  his  disciples  alt  truth, 
which  the  Chaplain  says  (P.  27.)  he  undoubtedly 
did  ?  Why  may  we  not  say,  that  he  taught  them 
truth  so  far,  as  to  prevent  their  falling  into  any  fun- 
damental error,  sufficient  to  overturn  the  great  princi- 
ples of  religion  ?  Why  may  we  not  say,  that  his  spi- 
rit was  so  far  with  the  evangelists,  as  to  direct  them 
in  teaching  the  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity,  but 
not  in  guarding  them  against  errors  of  less  conse- 
quence ?  And  why  may  we  not  thus  give  a  mortal 
stab  to  the  authority  of  scripture  itself,  by  limiting  its 
infallibility  to  those  things  only,  which  it  may  please 
each  man's  private  judgment  to  deem  fundamental  ? 

"  The  text,"  continues  the  Chaplain,  "  does  not 
even  insinuate  that  the  Christian  church  should  never 
teach  any  articles,  besides  such  as  are  fundamental 
and  necessary ;  or  that  some  overbearing  society  of 
Christians,  should  not  hold  out  many  erroneous  opi- 
nions, as  terms  of  communion  to  the  rest  of  the  faith- 
ful." If,  by  overbearing  society  of  Christians,  the 
author  mean  not  the  church  of  Christ,  he  is  certain- 
ly right ;  for  to  no  such  society  was  a  divine  promise 
ever  made,  of  its  not  falling  into  erroneous  opinions ; 
but  if  he  mean,  as  he  must,  to  say  any  thing  to  the 
purpose,  that  it  is  not  even  insinuated  in  the  promises 
of  Christ,  that  his  church  shall  never  hold  out  erroneous 
opinions  as  terms  of  communion,  I  am  yet  to  learn  the 
signification  of  plain  words.  "  For,"  says  an  excel- 
lent author,  "  if  words  retain  their  usual  signification, 
we  cannot  charge  the  church  of  Christ  with  error, 


3S 

even  against  any  one  single  article  of  faith^  but  we 
must  draw  this  impious  consequence  from  it,  that  he 
was  either  ignorant  of  the  event  of  his  promise,  or  un- 
faithful to  it ;  and  that  after  having  in  so  solemn  a 
manner  engaged  his  sacred  word  to  St.  Peter,  that  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  his  church,  he 
has  nevertheless  delivered  her  up  to  the  power  of 
Satan,  to  be  destroyed  by  him." 

"  This  consequence  will  appear  undeniable,  if  we 
consider  the  two  following  truths:  1st.  That  faith  is 
essential  to  the  constitution  of  the  church ;  and,  2dly. 
That  heresy  destroys  faith.  For  it  plainly  follows 
hence,  that,  if  the  whole  church  fall  into  heresy,  she 
is  without  faith,  and  is  no  more  the  church  she  was 
before,  than  a  man  can  continue  to  be  a  man  without 
a  soul."*  If  the  church  of  Christ  hold  out  errone- 
ous opinions  as  terms  of  communion,  does  she  not,  by 
public  authority,  establish  falsehood  instead  of  truth, 
and  the  lies  of  Satan  for  the  genuine  word  of  God  ? 
How  shall  we  be  assured  that  these  errors  are  not 
destructive  of  the  fundamental  articles  of  Christianity  ? 
Suppose,  for  instance,  she  require  an  idolatrous  wor- 
ship, or  teach  those  mysteries  of  iniquity  mentioned  in 
the  Chaplain's  letter,  (P.  11.)  the  denying  of  salvation, 
to  all  out  of  her  own  communion,  and  the  horrible  heresy 
of  persecution  ;  will  not  the  gates  of  hell  then  prevail 
against  her  ?  will  not  the  promises  of  Christ  be  vain 
and  deceitful  ? 

But,  it  seems,  the  promises  were  not  made  to  the 
church :  not  against  her,  but  "  against  the  great  and 
essential  tenets  expressed  in   the  apostles'  creed,  and 


Manning,  Shorten  Way  to  end  Disputes  about  Religion,  chap.  1. 
5 


34 

adopted  through  every  age  by  the  most  numerous 
body  of  Christians,  the  gates  of  death  or  of  hell  will  never 
prevail — They  will  ever  retain  sufficient  light  to  con- 
duct each  upright  and  pious  believer  to  all  points  of 
his  duty  upon  which  his  salvation  depends."  (Let.  p. 
28,  29.)  So,  before,  in  giving  us  the  obvious  meaning 
of  this  disputed  text,  the  Chaplain  had  found  out,  that 
the  gates  of  hell  were  never  to  succeed  in  overturning, 
not  the  church,  but  the  religion  of  Christ.  (P.  28.) 
Are  then  the  great  and  essential  tenets  of  the  apostles* 
creed,  and  the  church,  one  and  the  same  thing  ?  Is  the 
Christian  religion,  that  is,  the  Christian  system  of  be- 
lief and  practice,  the  same  thing  as  the  society  of 
Christians  professing  that  system  ?  When  we  are  di- 
rected, (Matth.  xviii.  16.)  to  tell  the  church  of  our 
offending  brethren,  are  we  to  go  and  tell  their  offen- 
ces to  the  great  and  essential  tenets  of  Christianity,  or  to 
the  Christian  religion?  It  is  not  difficult  to  discover  the 
advantage,  or  rather  the  fatal  consequences  to  Christi- 
anity, which  an  able  but  irreligious  controvertist  might 
hope  to  derive  from  this  alteration.  He  might  lay 
down,  as  the  only  fundamental  articles  of  Christian 
belief,  some  few,  which  offer  no  violence  to  his  under- 
standing or  passions;  and  such,  as  having  for  this 
very  reason  been  little  contested,  were  generally  ad- 
mitted by  sectaries  of  all  denominations.  He  might 
then  contend,  that  the  promises  of  Christ  refer  only 
to  the  upholding  of  these  articles,  and  that  the  gates 
of  hell  shall  never  prevail  to  their  extinction.  The  re- 
ligious societies  professing  to  believe  them  may  all 
perish  in  their  turns;  but  the  promises  of  Christ  will 
abide,  if  a  new  society  arise  adhering  to  the  same 
supposed  fundamental  tenets ;  she  may  adopt  many 


-35 

errors  indeed,  and  superinduce  them  on  the  founda- 
tion of  faith.  But  for  all  this,  the  promises  of  Christ 
would  not  be  made  void ;  these  promises  not  being 
intended  in  favour  of  any  religious  society  or  church, 
however  the  letter  of  them  may  sound,  but  only  of 
the  fundamental  articles  of  religion.  It  will  then  be 
immaterial,  whether  we  unite  with  Catholics,  Protest- 
ants, or  any  ancient  or  modern  sectaries,  provided 
they  admit  the  few  doctrines  which  each  of  us  may 
lay  down  as  fundamental  of  Christianity ;  and  we  may 
call  this  being  Catholic  Christians  ;  though  the  sincere 
friends  of  Christianity,  both  Catholic  and  Protestant, 
have  deemed  such  principles  latitudinarianism  in  reli- 
gion, and  indeed  subversive  of  all  revealed  religion. 
Will  the  Chaplain  say,  that  he  did  not  intend  to  put 
the  charge  upon  his  readers,  and  that  the  expressions 
I  have  noticed,  fell  inadvertently  from  his  pen  ?  Will 
he  acknowledge  that,  without  prejudice  to  his  cause* 
the  word  church  may  be  substituted,  agreeably  to  the 
scriptural  text,  where  he  has  placed  great  and  essen- 
tial articles  ?  Be  it  so ;  and  let  not  his  candour  be 
impeached.  But  let  us  now  see  what  will  come  of 
his  exposition.  Against  the  church,  the  gates  of  hell 
will  never  prevail — but  she  will  ever  retain  sufficient  light 
to  conduct  each  upright  and  pious  believer  to  all  points 
of  his  duty,  upon  which  his  salvation  depends.  (P.  29.) 
If  this  be  true,  and  necessarily  true  in  virtue  of  the 
promises  of  Christ,  then  even  in  the  most  deplorable  era 
of  superstition  and  ignorance,  (Let.  p.  31.)  in  every  pre- 
ceding and  subsequent  era,  even  in  that  of  the  reforma- 
tion, "  the  Christian  church  retained  sufficient  light  to 
conduct  each  upright  and  pious  believer  to  all  points  of 
his  duty,  upon- which  his  salvation  depended."    Need 


36 

I  point  out  the  consequences  ensuing  to  the  first  re» 
formers  from  this  doctrine  ;  and  consequently  to  those 
who  became  their  disciples  ?  Need  I  tell  you,  that, 
having  separated  themselves  from  the  great  body  of 
Christians  throughout  the  world,  they  broke  asunder 
the  link  of  unity,  and  left  a  society  in  which  sufficient 
light  remained  to  conduct  each  upright  and  pious  believer 
to  all  points  of  his  duty?  And  since  this  society  is  the 
same  now  it  then  was,  or  rather  more  pure,  for  (the 
Chaplain  says,  the  Roman  church  is  daily  undergoing  a 
silent  reformation,}* .  12.)  it  still  retains  that  light,  and 
consequently  still  has  the  promises  of  Christ  pledged 
for  its  continuance.  But  what  assurance  has  he,  or 
any  one,  who  leaves  this  society,  of  the  promises  of 
Christ,  extended  to  that,  which  he  embraces  in  its 
stead  ? 

Before  I  conclude  upon  this  text,  you  will  allow  me 
to  state  the  Chaplain's  objection  to  the  Catholic  ex- 
planation of  it,  and  to  give  you  the  answer,  as  I  find 
it  ready  made  to  my  hands.  The  objection  is,  that 
the  text  might  be  as  well  alleged  to  prove,  that  sin 
and  wickedness  cannot  prevail  against  the  church,  as 
it  is  brought  to  prove  that  error  and  heresy  cannot; 
for  vice  is  as  formidable  an  enemy  to  religion,  as  error; 
and  the  Christian  system  is  as  perfectly  calculated  to  make 
us  good  men  as  orthodox  believers.  (P.  28.)  "  So  far" 
the  Chaplain  "  is  in  the  right;  that  in  virtue  of  this, 
and  many  other  promises  of  the  word  of  God,  sin  and 
wickedness  shall  never  so  generally  prevail,  but  that 
the  church  of  Christ,  shall  be  always  holy  both  in  her 
doctrine,  and  in  the  lives  of  many,  both  pastors  and 
people,  living  up  to  her  doctrine.  But  then  there  is 
this  difference  between  the  case  of  damnable  error  in 


-37 

doctrine,  and  that  of  sin  and  wickedness  in  practice, 
that  the  former,  if  established  by  the  whole  body  of 
church-guides,  would  of  course  involve  also  the  whole 
body  of  God's  people,  who  are  commanded  to  hear 
their  church-guides,  and  do  what  they  teach  them; 
whereas,  in  the  latter  case,  if  pastors  are  guilty  of 
any  wicked  practices  contrary  to  their  doctrine,  the 
faithful  are  taught  to  do  what  they  say,  and  not  what 
they  do."    (Matth.  xxiii.  2,  3.)* 

To  show,  farther,  that  infallibility  in  faith  is  not 
necessarily  attended  with  unfailing  sanctity  of  man- 
ners, let  it  be  observed,  that  though  in  time  of  the 
Old  Testament,  God  was  present  with  his  infallible 
spirit  to  David  and  Solomon,  when  they  wrote  their 
books  received  into  the  canon  of  scripture,  yet  he 
did  not  prevent  the  first  from  committing  adultery 
and  murder,  nor  the  second  from  going  after  Asta- 
roth,  the  goddess  of  the  Sidonians,  and  after  J\/Iichom,  the 
abomination  of  the  Ammonites.  (1  Kings  xi.  15.)  Nei- 
ther did  Christ  render  his  apostles  and  evangelists 
impeccable,  though  he  conferred  on  them  the  privi- 
lege of  infallibility.  When  the  Chaplain  has  disco- 
vered, in  the  decrees  of  infinite  wisdom,  the  true  rea- 
son of  this  conduct,  he  will  at  the  same  time  be  able 
to  give  a  satisfactory  answer  to  his  own  objection,  and 
tell  us,  why  it  may  not  please  Divine  Providence  to  or- 
dain  the  preservation  of  the  church  from  error,  and 
yet  suffer  the  individual  members  of  it  to  be  liable  to 
sin  and  immorality. 

I  now  proceed  to  the  promises  of  Christ,  made  at 
his   last  supper,  in  that   discourse   which   "  is,  as  it 

*  Letter  to  a  friend  concerning  Infallibility.     London,  1743.' 


38 

were,  his  last  will  and  testament ;  every  word  where- 
of seems  to  be  the  overflowing  of  a  heart  filled  with 
concern  for  his  future  church."*  These  promises  the 
Chaplain  has  stated  compendiously  enough.  "  The 
divine  author  of  the  Christian  religion  promised,''' 
says  he,  "  to  teach  his  disciples  all  truth.  (John  xiv.  15, 
16.)  And  he  undoubtedly  did  so.  But  where  did  he 
so  far  ensure  the  faith  of  their  successors,  as  to  secure 
them  from  building  wood,  hay,  and  stubble  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  gospel  ?"  (P.  27.)  "He  promised  to 
be  with  his  disciples  to  the  end  of  the  world.  (Matth.  xix. 
[should  be  xxviii.]  20.)  And  who  denies  it  ?  He  is  with 
his  church  by  his  protection,  by  his  grace,  by  the 
lights  he  communicates  to  her,  by  the  strength  which 
he  exerts  in  supporting  her  against  violence  and 
temptation."  (Ibid.) 

Such,  according  to  the  Chaplain,  is  the  explanation 
of  these  passages  from  St.  John.  His  reasons  for  so 
explaining  them  shall  be  presently  examined.  I  will 
first  set  the  texts  down  more  fully,  as  they  stand  in 
the  gospel.  Our  Saviour's  words,  spoken  to  his  apos- 
tles, and  recorded  by  St.  John  in  his  14th  chapter,, 
are  these  :  /  will  ask  my  Father,  and  he  will  send  you 
another  Comforter  to  abide  with  you  for  ever.  (John 
xiv.  16.)  And  soon  after  he  informs  them  who  this 
Comforter  is  to  be,  and  to  what  end  his  Father  will 
send  him.  The  Comforter,  says  Christ,  whom  the  Fa- 
ther will  send  in  my  name,  he  shall  teach  you  all  things, 
and  bring  all  things  to  your  remembrance,  whatsoever  I 
have  said  unto  you.  (Ibid.  1 6.)  This  promise  is  again 
repeated  in  the  16th  chapter,  which  is  a  continuation 

.  *  Shortest  Way,  fee. 


39 

of  the  same  discourse.  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say 
unto  you  ;  but  you  cannot  hear  them  now  ;  however,  when 
the  Spirit  of  truth  is  come,  he  will  lead  you  into  all  truth. 

In  these  texts,  we  see  the  means  clearly  and  dis- 
tinctly set  down,  by  which  the  church  is  to  be  for 
ever  protected,  viz.  the  perpetual  assistance  of  the 
Divine  Spirit,  teaching  and  leading  the  apostles  and 
their  successors,  that  is,  the  body  of  pastors,  into  all 
truth  necessary  and  relating  to  the  service  of  God, 
and  salvation  of  man. 

The  Chaplain  denies  not  the  sufficiency  of  the 
means  ;  he  even  acknowledges,  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
undoubtedly  led  the  disciples  into  all  truth  ;  but  to  them 
he  limits  the  extent  of  the  promises  ;  the  faith  of  their 
successors  is  left  to  be  tossed  to  and  fro  with  every  wind 
of  doctrine  ;*  or  at  best,  to  be  modelled  upon  their  own 
fallible  interpretation  of  scripture.  For  where,  says 
he,  did  the  divine  Author  of  our  religion  ensure  the 
faith  of  their  successors  ?  (P.  27.)  I  answer,  in  the 
plain,  unambiguous  words,  as  I  have  cited  them  from 
John  xiv.  16. ;  for  they  expressly  say,  that  the  Com- 
forter, or  Holy  Ghost,  shall  abide  with  the  apostles 
for  ever  ;  which,  "  though  addressed  to  them,  as  the 
whole  sermon  at  our  Saviours  last  supper  was,  yeU 
like  many  other  truths  contained  in  it,  could  not  regard 
their  persons  alone  ;  for  they  were  not  to  live  for 
ever  ;  but  comprehended  likewise  all  those  who  were 
to  succeed  them  in  after  ages.  And  that  this  was  the 
intent  of  our  Saviour's  promise  appears  clearly  from 
his  last  words  before  his  ascension,  recorded  by  St. 
Matthew."! 

*  Ephes.  iv.  14  t  Shortest  Way.  kc  <=ert.  g 


40 

These  words  of  St.  Matthew  are  in  part  cited  by 
the  Chaplain,  as  you  have  seen ;  but  they  deserve  to 
be  set  down  at  large.  All power  is  given  unto  me  in 
heaven  and  earth.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whichsoever  I  have  commanded  you  ;  and  behold  I  am  with 
you  always,  (in  the  Greek,  all  days,)  even  unto  the 
end  of  the  world.*  Here  surely  Christ  promises  to 
be  perpetually,  even  to  the  world's  end,  with  them, 
who  were  to  teach  and  baptize  all  nations.  Were 
the  apostles,  to  whom  these  words  were  immediately 
addressed,  to  perform  that  function  for  ever  ?  He  or- 
ders them,  and  consequently  their  successors,  in  the 
ministry  of  the  word,  to  teach  all  things,  whichsoever 
he  had  commanded.  Does  not  this  evidently  imply, 
that  they  were  themselves  to  be  assisted  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  to  discover  what  those  things  are  ?  or  did  he 
impose  upon  them  an  obligation,  without  affording 
the  means  of  compliance  ?  If  they  were  to  be  assisted 
in  discovering  and  teaching  all  things  delivered  by 
Christ ;  if  they  were  ordered  to  teach,  and  he  was  to 
be  present  with  them  in  the  ministry  of  teaching,  even 
to  the  world's  end ;  does  not  this  import  a  correspon- 
dent obligation  in  the  hearers,  to  receive  and  embrace 
the  doctrines  so  delivered  ?  Will  any  one  say,  that, 
before  he  embraces  them,  he  must  be  assured  that  the 
doctrines  which  he  hears,  are  the  things  commanded 
by  Jesus  Christ  ?  Will  he  say,  that  he  must  be  satis- 
fied, they  are  agreeable  to  the  written  word  of  God  ? 
I  will  answer  him,  that  by  this  proceeding  he  would 

*  Matth.  xsviii.  20,21. 


41 

render  the  commission  of  teaching,  intrusted  by  Jesus 
Christ  to  his  apostles  and  their  successors,  vain  and 
nugatory ;  he  would  transfer  the  ministry  from  them, 
and  render  it  the  duty  of  every  person  to  be  his  own 
teacher ;  he  would  destroy  the  divine  economy  of  the 
church,  in  which  Christ  gave  some  apostles,  and  some 
prophets,  and  other  some  evangelists,  and  other  some  pastors 
and  doctors,  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work 
of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ. 
(Eph.  iv.  11,  12.)  The  rational  inquiry  remaining, 
after  a  conviction  of  the  divinity  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion is,  are  they,  wlio  deliver  these  doctrines,  the 
lawful  successors  of  the  apostles  ?  Can  they  trace 
to  them  their  line  of  succession  ?  If  they  can,  we  must 
account  of  them  as  the  ministers  of  Christ,  and  the  dis- 
pensers of  the  mysteries  of  God*  from  whom  we  may 
learn  certainly  the  truth  of  the  gospel.  For  though 
each  pastor  be  not  so  in  his  private  capacity,  yet,  as 
far  as  he  teaches  us  in  concert  with  the  rest,  I  mean, 
inasmuch  as  he  delivers  the  faith  of  the  church,  in 
that  respect  he  is  infallible. 

The  Chaplain,  in  his  comments  upon  the  famous 
passage  of  Matth.  xvi.  18.,  insinuated,  that,  though  the 
gates  of  hell  should  never  prevail  against  the  church, 
to  the  suppression  of  the  points  of  faith,  deemed  by 
him  fundamental,  yet  false  opinions  might  be  superin- 
duced, and  so  far  error  might  prevail.  He  here 
again  would  establish  the  same  doctrine  ;  and  though 
compelled,  by  the  evident  authority  of  scripture,  to 
confess,  that  Christ  communicated  infallibility  to  his 
disciples,  he  thinks  this  no  security,  that  their  success 


1  Cor.  iv.  1. 
0 


42 

sors  will  not  build  on  the  foundation  of  the  gospei 
wood,  hay,  and  stubble.  If,  by  these  words,  the  Chap- 
lain understand  corrupt  doctrines  in  faith  and  man- 
ners, it  is  plain,  from  the  very  expressions  of  Christ, 
that  he  is  mistaken.  For  all  truth  in  matters  of  faith 
and  salvation,  into  which  the  Spirit  was  to  lead  themy 
is  exclusive  of  all  error  in  the  same  line.  In  a  word, 
either  the  promises  of  the  assisting  Spirit  of  truth,  are 
confined  to  the  immediate  disciples  of  Christ,  or  not. 
If  they  are,  then  we  have  no  assurance  of  the  church's 
continuing  even  in  the  profession  of  fundamental 
points ;  if  not,  then  upon  what  authority  are  the  pro* 
mises  to  be  restrained  to  the  church's  being  guided 
into  some  truth,  when  they  expressly  declare,  that  she 
shall  be  guided  into  all  truth  ? 

But  is  not  Christ  with  his  church,  by  his  protection,  by 
his  grace,  &c.  ?  Can  he  not  be  with  her  without  render- 
ing her  infallible?  Is  he  not  with  every  just  man,  &c.  ? 
(Let.  p.  27.)  Yes,  surely  ;  he  affords  protection  and 
grace ;  he  might  not  have  rendered  her  infallible ; 
but  when  he  informs  us,  that  he  will  direct  his  church 
by  the  Spirit  of  truth,  consequently  a  spirit  opposite  to 
that  of  error  ;  when,  in  Matth.  xxviii.,  he  promises  to 
the  pastors  of  his  church  such  a  kind  of  presence* 
assistance,  and  guidance,  as  shall  qualify  them  effec- 
tually to  teach  all  those  things,  which  he  himself  taught, 
and  this  for  all  times;  shall  we  esteem  him  to  be  no 
otherwise  with  them,  than  with  particular  righteous 
men  ?  Where  has  he  ever  promised  these,  that  singu- 
lar and  uninterrupted  assistance  of  the  Spirit  of  truth? 
To  private  persons  the  Holy  Ghost  is  given,  as  the 
Spirit  of  sanctification  ;  but  to  the  church*  as  the  Spirit 


43 

of  truth,  as  well  as  sanctification,  guiding  her  into  all 
truth,  and  directly  excluding  all  error  from  her. 

I  hope  it  will  now  appear  to  you,  that  the  proofs  of 
the  church's  infallibility,  from  St.  John  and  Matth. 
xxviii.,  are  not  invalidated  by  the  Chaplain's  objec- 
tions. I  have  adduced  no  arguments  to  confirm  you 
in  your  belief  of  this  capital  doctrine  ;  but  meeting  the 
Chaplain  on  his  own  ground,  have  only  endeavoured 
to  defend  it  from  his  objections,  whom  we  are  griev- 
ed to  have  for  an  adversary.  I  forbear  to  allege 
other  numerous  testimonies  of  scripture,  the  concur- 
rent authority  of  holy  fathers,  and  the  whole  conduct 
of  church  government,  from  the  very  days  of  the  apos- 
tles, which  necessarily  supposes  this,  as  an  unques- 
tionable article  of  Christian  faith.  "  I  know  very 
well,  that  no  text  of  holy  scripture  is  so  clear,  but 
persons  of  much  wit,  may  find  interpretations  to  per- 
plex it,  or  set  it  in  a  false  light ;  but  the  question  is 
not,  whether  the  texts  I  have  produced  may,  with 
some  pain  and  study,  be  interpreted  otherwise  than 
the  Roman  Catholic  church  has  always  understood 
them ;  but  whether,  in  their  natural,  obvious,  and  lite- 
ral sense,  they  do  not  lead  an  unbiassed  reader  to  the 
idea  and  belief  of  an  infallible  church.  Now  then  let 
us  suppose,  that  the  contradictories  of  the  texts  I  have 
quoted  were  found  in  holy  writ.  As  for  instance, 
suppose  our  Saviour  had  said  to  St.  Peter,  /  will  not 
build  my  church  upon  a  rock,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  pre- 
vail against  it.  Suppose  he  had  said  to  his  apostles,  1 
will  not  be  with  you  to  the  end  of  the  ivorld.  /  will  not 
send  the  Holy  Ghost  to  abide  ivith  you  for  ever.  He  shall 
not  teach  you  all  things,  nor  lead  you  into  all  truth.  Would 
not  all  men  of  sound  sense,  have  concluded  from  such 


44 

texts,  that  there  is  no  such  a  thing  as  an  infallible 
church  on  earth  ?  They  certainly  would,  because  the 
natural  and  obvious  meaning  of  them  is  so  plain,  that 
it  is  impossible  not  to  draw  that  consequence  from 
them.  Now,  if  one  part  of  two  contradictories,  can- 
not but  force  a  man  of  an  unbiassed  judgment  to  con- 
clude against  the  doctrine  of  infallibility,  the  other 
part  is  surely  of  equal  force,  to  oblige  him  to  conclude 
in  favour  of  it.  So  that  it  is  nothing  to  the  purpose, 
whether  Protestants  can,  or  cannot  strain  the  texts  I 
have  produced,  from  their  natural  and  obvious  mean- 
ing ;  but  it  is  much  to  the  purpose  to  consider,  whe- 
ther they  can  bring  any  evidence  from  scripture  to 
disprove  the  infallibility  of  the  church,  of  equal 
strength  and  clearness  to  the  texts  I  have  brought  to 
prove  it."* 

The  Chaplain's  argument  against  infallibility,  next 
to  be  considered,  is  that  which  he  truly  calls  a  hack- 
neyed one.  After  reading  this  answer,  you  may  like- 
wise judge  whether  it  be  a  conclusive  one. 

In  the  author  of  the  Case  stated  between  the  church 
of  Rome  and  the  church  of  England,  the  argument  is 
thus  laid  down :  "  You  (Roman  Catholics)  believe 
the  scriptures,  because  the  church  bids  you  ;  and  you 
believe  the  church,  because  the  scriptures  bid  you." 
And  he  triumphantly  adds,  that  this  is  the  old  circle, 
out  of  which  we  can  never  conjure  ourselves. 

Let  us  now  first  examine  the  principles  of  logic, 
and  find  out  what  is  understood  by  a  vicious  circle. 
We  shall  find  it  to  be  that  kind  of  argument,  by  which 
"two  propositions  reciprocally  prove  each  other;   and 

•*  Shortest  Way  to  end  Disputes,  chap.  1.  sect.  £, 


45 

neither  of  them  is  proved  by  any  other  medium;  as 
if  a  man  were  to  attempt  to  prove  that  a  stone  fell, 
because  it  was  heavy;  and  that  it  was  heavy,  because 
it  fell,  without  being  able  to  assign  any  other  reason, 
either  of  its  falling  or  its  gravity.  But  if  its  gravity 
were  demonstrable  from  other  considerations,  then 
from  that  property  its  falling  might  justly  be  inferred; 
and  if  its  having  fallen  should,  for  instance,  be  attested 
by  credible  eye-witnesses,  its  gravity  might  be  dedu- 
ced from  its  falling;  the  cause,  in  this  instance,  infer- 
ring the  effect — and  the  effect  proving  the  existence 
of  the  cause. 

Having  premised  so  much,  now  let  us  analyze  the 
Catholic  faith,  and  see  if  we  reason  as  badly  as  the 
Chaplain  asserts. 

The  Catholic  reasoner  has  only  to  open  his  eyes, 
and  he  will  discover,  that  his  church  is  in  the  prac- 
tice of  determining  controversies  of  faith,  by  the  con- 
current authority  of  the  episcopal  body.  But  this 
view  alone,  does  not  give  him  any  undoubted  assu- 
rance of  the  infallibility  of  her  determinations.  He  is 
led,  therefore,  next,  to  consider,  when  the  church  first 
exercised  this  authority.  Did  she  assume  it  in  ages 
of  darkness  and  ignorance  ?  Did  she  usurp  it  with  a 
high  hand,  contrary  to  the  usage  of  the  first  ages  ? 
What  information  will  the  Christian  collect  in  the 
course  of  this  inquiry  ?  He  will  find  living  monuments 
of  this  prerogative  being  always  exercised,  even  from 
the  days  of  the  apostles,  and  throughout  every  suc- 
ceeding age.  I  say,  living  monuments;  for  they  are 
now  subsisting;  and  still  afford  as  evident  proof  of 
the  exercise  of  the  authority,  as  if  the  facts  had  pass- 
ed in  our  own  time,  and  within  our  own  memory;  or 


4<i 

as  full  proof  as  we  have,  of  the  courts  of  judicature  of 
this  state,  having  heretofore  decided  the  legal  contro- 
versies of  the  citizens  thereof.  For  instance,  the  ab- 
rogating of  circumcision,  and  other  observances  of 
the  Jewish  law,  is  a  still  subsisting  monument  of  the 
power  of  deciding  being  claimed  and  exercised  by  the 
church.  Such  likewise  is  the  custom  of  not  rebaptiz- 
ing  persons  baptized  by  heretics ;  such  is  the  Nicene 
creed,  and  particularly  the  word  consubstantial, 
making  part  of  it.  These  monuments,  to  omit  innu- 
merable others,  owe  their  existence  to  the  exercise  of 
the  definitive  authority  of  the  church  in  matters  of 
faith.  The  inquiring  Christian  will  farther  discover 
a  most  conspicuous  monument  of  it,  in  the  canon  of 
holy  scripture.  Many  books  therein  received,  were 
some  time  doubted  of;  others  were  contended  for, 
which  are  now  rejected.  The  church  interposed  her 
authority,  and  the  canon  of  scripture  became  estab- 
lished. On  these  facts,  palpable,  manifest,  and  of 
public  notoriety,  the  Christian  will  reason  thus  :  The 
church,  even  from  the  apostles'  time,  has  always  exer- 
cised the  authority  of  deciding  controverted  points  ; 
her  interposition  would  be  of  no  avail,  if  her  autho- 
rity were  not  to  be  considered  as  definitive  and  infal- 
lible. The  primitive  Christians  so  considered  it. 
Whoever  refused  submission,  was  cast  from  the 
church,  and  reputed  as  a  heathen  and  publican.  On 
these  grounds  will  the  Christian  be  induced  to  believe 
her  infallibility  ;  happy,  that  his  belief  arise  not  from 
a  series  of  abstruse  reasoning,  but  is  built  upon  public, 
notorious  facts,  within  the  reach  of  the  most  common 
understanding.  The  church  has  always,  from  the 
first  era  of  Christianity,  exercised  the  right  of  judg- 


47 

ing  in  matters  of  faith,  and  requiring  obedience  to  her 
decisions ;  the  monuments  attesting  it  are  certain  and 
visible.  The  exercise  of  such  a  right,  without  infalli- 
bility, would  be  vain  and  nugatory ;  therefore  she  is 
infallible.  After  thus  discovering  her  infallibility 
upon  the  evidence  of  notorious  facts,  it  is  a  subject  of 
much  comfort  to  the  sincere  Christian,  as  well  as  a 
confirmation  of  his  faith,  to  find  the  same  truth  attest- 
ed by  the  words  of  scripture  ;  and  having  before  be- 
lieved it  for  the  evidence  just  mentioned,  he  now  like- 
wise believes  it  for  the  authority  of  scripture,  at  the 
same  time  that  he  believes  scripture  for  the  authority 
of  the  church.  Where  now  is  the  circle  of  false  rea- 
soning ?  Is  not  infallibility  first  demonstrated  from 
other  considerations,  before  it  is  demonstrated  from 
scripture  ?  And  is  not  this  alone,  in  the  principles  of 
sound  logic,  sufficient  to  destroy  the  magic  of  this 
famous  circle,  and  the  argument  built  upon  it  ?  But 
indeed  this  argument  is  many  ways  vulnerable,  and 
you  may  find  it  otherwise  destroyed  in  the  authors  re- 
ferred to  in  the  note.* 

One  word  more  concerning  this  hackneyed  argu- 
ment, and  we  will  be  done  with  it.  Let  it  be  taken 
for  granted,  that  our  process  of  reasoning  runs  round 
a  circle  ;  a  Deist,  an  infidel,  a  disbeliever  of  scripture, 
might  with  propriety  object  to  it.  But  how  csln  the 
Chaplain  3o  so,  or  any  person  professing  his  belief  of 
scripture  infallibility  ?  For,  admitting  this  infallibility, 
he  admits  one  of  the  propositions,  which  reciprocal!) 
prove  each  other ;  and  therefore,  in  arguing  against 
him,  we  may   logically   infer  the  church's  infallibility 

*  The  true  Church  of  Christ,  p.  2.  ch.  3.  sect.  3.     Shortest  Way,  &c.  p.  2. 
sect.  2. 


48 

from  texts  of  scripture;  it  being  a  common  principle 
with  us  both,  that  scripture  is  divinely  inspired  ;  and 
no  one  is  bound  to  prove  a  principle  admitted  by  his 
adversary. 

The  Chaplain  produces  against  the  Church's  infal- 
libility another  argument,  which  he  might  likewise 
have  called  a  hackneyed  one  ;  for  it  has  been  urged 
with  great  perseverance  by  our  adversaries.  He 
says,  that  all  Roman  Catholics  are  bound  to  admit  an  in- 
fallible authority ;  yet  few  of  them  agree,  where,  or  in  ivhom, 
it  resides.  (P.  2b.  note.)  When  I  have  met  with  this 
argument  in  the  writings  of  opponents,  little  acquainted 
with  our  principles,  of  whom  there  are  many,  it  has 
not  surprised  me.  But  that  the  Chaplain  should  like- 
wise insist  upon  it,  is  really  matter  of  astonish- 
ment. For  he  must  know,  that  in  the  doctrine  which 
we  teach,  as  belonging  to  faith  in  this  point,  and  as 
an  article  of  communion,  there  is  no  variation;  and 
with  all  his  reading  and  recollection,  I  will  venture 
to  assert,  that  he  cannot  cite  one  Catholic  divine, 
who  denies  infallibility  to  reside  in  the  body  of  bish- 
ops, united  and  agreeing  with  their  head,  the  bishop 
of  Rome.  So  that,  when  the  Chaplain  says,  that  some 
schoolmen  have  taught  the  infallibility  of  the  pope — some 
place  it  in  a  general  council ;  others  in  the  pope  and  coun- 
cil, received  by  the  whole  church,  (Note,  ibid.)  he  is  under 
a  great  mistake ;  for  the  last  is  not  a  mere  opi- 
nion of  schoolmen,  but  the  constant  belief  of  all  Ca- 
tholics ;  a  belief,  in  which  there  is  no  variation.  Some 
divines,  indeed,  hold  the  pope,  as  Christ's  vicar  on 
earth,  to  be  infallible,  even  without  a  council ;  but 
with  this  opinion  faith  has  no  concern,  every  one  being 


49 

at  liberty  to  adopt  or  reject  it,  as  the  reasons  for  or 
against  may  affect  him. 

The  Chaplain  adds  in  the  same  place,  that,  since 
the  council  of  Trent,  many  things  have  been  unani- 
mously taught  respecting  the  pope's  authority,  which 
are,  I  own,  new  to  me,  and  which,  I  confidently  aver, 
he  cannot  make  good.  Nay,  so  far  are  they  from 
being  taught  unanimously  since  the  council  of  Trent, 
that  they  are  not  taught  at  all,  for  instance,  in  France; 
and  are  expressly  contradicted  by  the  maxims  and  so- 
lemn determinations  of  the  Gallican  clergy,  in  the 
year  1782;  to  which  maxims  and  determinations  the 
theological  schools  there  have  constantly  conformed. 

Nor  is  it  only  in  France,  that  many  of  the  doctrines 
are  rejected,  which,  he  says,  are  taught  unanimously 
amongst  us;  but  they  are  exploded  in  every  Catho- 
lic country  in  the  world.  The  body  of  bishops  every 
where  claim  a  divine  ri°;ht,  in  virtue  of  their  ordina- 
tion, to  interpret  the  decrees  of  councils,  and  the  or- 
dinances of  the  popes.  The  Chaplain  having  dis- 
carded his  former  religion,  appears  likewise  to  have 
erased  from  his  memory,  the  theological  principles  of 
our  schools. 

He  concludes  his  note  with  a  curious  piece  of  rea- 
soning. A  Christian,  he  says,  may  mistake  the  words 
of  a  pope,  (the  meaning  of  the  words,  I  presume,)  as 
easily  as  he  can  mistake  the  words  of  scripture.  So,  un- 
doubtedly, he  may;  and,  for  this  very  reason,  a  living 
authority  is  necessary  to  explain  uncertainties,  to  re- 
move ambiguities.  But  perhaps  he  means  to  carry 
his  argument  into  the  very  heart  of  our  principles, 
and  deny  that  even  a  living  authority  can  speak  a  lan- 
guage clear  enough  to  determine  doubts  and  convict 

7 


so 

obstinacy.  But  tew  will  be  persuaded  that  the  pow- 
ers of  living  language  are  so  limited;  as  well  might 
he  attempt  to  persuade  us,  that  when  parties  litigate 
on  the  interpretation  of  the  law,  the  judges  cannot 
deliver  sentence  in  terms  clear  enough  to  determine 
the  controversy. 

You  have  hitherto  seen  the  Chaplain  endeavour  to 
disprove  the  church's  infallibility,  by  his  interpreta- 
tion of  certain  passages  of  scripture,  and  by  discover- 
ing fallacies  and  inconsistencies  in  our  doctrine  on  this 
subject.  Not  content  with  thus  attacking  this  capital 
tenet  of  our  religion,  he  sets  about  to  prove  that  the 
church  may  err,  because  in  fact  she  has  erred.  To 
show  it,  he  alleges,  1  st.  That  she  formerly  taught  doc- 
trines as  of  faith,  which  she  now  rejects  as  contrary 
to  faith.  2dly.  She  suppressed  for  a  time  certain  te- 
nets, which  ought  to  have  been  taught  at  all  times,  or 
not  taught  at  all.  3dly.  She  requires  a  belief  of 
things  which  are  not  contained  in  scripture,  as  is  ac- 
knowledged even  by  some  of  our  own  divines. 

How  does  he  prove  the  first  of  these  charges  ?  By 
asserting  (P.  29,30.)  that  the  doctrine  of  the  millennium, 
now  rejected  by  the  church,  was  maintained  as  an  arti- 
cle of  the  Catholic  faith  by  almost  every  father  who  lived 
immediately  after  the  times  of  the  apostles.  In  opposition 
to  this  very  positive  assertion,  I  will  take  upon  me  to 
say,  that  not  one  of  the  primitive  fathers  held  the  opi- 
nion here  mentioned,  as  an  article  of  Catholic  faith 
and  communion.  At  the  very  time  of  its  prevalence 
(for  it  was  indeed  adopted  by  Irenasus,  Justin  the 
Martyr,  &c.)  it  was  combated  by  others  not  less  zeal- 
ously attached  to  the  church's  communion,  as  is  ac- 
knowledged even  by  Justin  himself,  who,  speaking  of 


51 

the  millennium,  says :  "  I  have  already  confessed  to 
you,  o  Trypho,  that  I,  and  many  others  of  the  same 
mind  with  me,  do  think  it  will  come  to  pass  ;  but  I 
have  also  signified  that  many  who  are  of  pure  and  pious 
Christian  sentiments  do  not  think  so."*  Do  these 
words  indicate,  that  the  millennarian  doctrine  was 
maintained  as  an  article  of  the  Catholic  faith,  by  almost 
every  primitive  father,  as  is  asserted  by  the  Chaplain? 
Do  they  not  clearly  prove,  that  even  its  ablest  advo- 
cates, amongst  whom  Justin  surely  was,  did  not  con- 
sider it  as  such,  but  as  an  opinion  open  to  discussion 
and  contradiction  ?  And,  accordingly,  Eusebius,  in  his 
Ecclesiastical  History,  cites  passages  of  a  work  writ- 
ten against  this  doctrine  in  the  very  beginning  of  the 
third  century,  by  Caius,  a  Catholic  priest,t  the  co- 
temporary  of  Justin  and  Irena3us. 

I  need  take  no  notice  of  what  the  Chaplain  adds,J 
that  it  was  the  decided  opinion  of  almost  all  the  primitive 
fathers,  that  the  souls  of  good  men  did  not  enjoy  the  beati- 
fic vision  previous  to  the  general  resurrection  ;  for  since 
he  does  not  say,  that  this  opinion  ever  became  an  ar- 
ticle of  Catholic  faith,  as  it  certainly  never  did,  I  may 
be  allowed  to  suspend  any  investigation  of  this  sub- 
ject, which  has  been  ably  and  solidly  discussed  by 
Bellarmine  long  ago.§ 

The  Chaplain  argues,  secondly,  that  the  church  has 
erred,  because  she  regards  some  articles  at  present  as 
articles  of  faith,  which  for  many  ages  were  debated  as  mat- 
ters of  opinion.^  This  we  freely  admit;  and,  I  hope, 
without  any  prejudice   to  the  claim  of  infallibility ; 

*  Just.  Mart.  Dial.  cum.  Tryph.  p.  306.  edit.  Colon,  ann.  1687. 

t  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  1.  3.c.  28. 

X  Note,  ibid.  *  Bell,  de  Sanc.t.  Reatitud.  1.  I.  jf  P.  3& 


52 

though  the  Chaplain  thinks,  that  a  very  forcible  ar- 
gument arises  from  this  fact ;  for  these  doctrines  hav- 
ing been  delivered  by  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
either  as  essential  or  not ;  if  the  first,  she  forfeited 
her  claim  to  infallibility  by  omitting  to  teach  them  for 
many  ages ;  and  if  the  second,  she  equally  forfeits  it 
by  imposing,  as  necessary  to  be  believed,  what  nei- 
ther Christ  nor  his  apostles  did  so  teach. 

Before  I  proceed  to  a  direct  answer,  it  may  be  pro- 
per to  premise,  that  the  distinction  of  essentials,  and 
not  essentials  ;  fundamentals  and  not  fundamentals  in 
faith,  to  which  the  Chaplain  so  often  recurs,  is  not  ad- 
mitted by  us  in  his  sense,  and  that  of  other  Protest- 
ant authors.  We  hold  all  revealed  doctrines,  when 
sufficiently  proposed  to  our  understanding,  to  be  es- 
sential in  this  respect,  that  under  pain  of  disobedience 
and  heresy,  we  are  bound  to  believe  and  submit  our 
understanding  to  them ;  and  the  reason  is,  because 
we  conceive  of  all  doctrines  so  proposed,  that  they 
are  revealed  by  God,  who  neither  can  err,  nor  lead 
into  error.  Now,  whether  the  doctrine  be  in  its  own 
nature,  or  in  our  estimation,  of  great  importance,  or 
not,  it  equally  claims  our  assent,  if  divine  authority  is 
pledged  for  the  truth  of  it.  In  another  sense,  indeed, 
some  points  of  faith,  are  more  essential  and  fundamen- 
tal than  others  ;  for  without  our  knowledge,  or,  indeed, 
without  any  revelation  of  some  of  them,  Christianity 
might  subsist ;  whereas,  other  points  are  so  interwov- 
en with  the  system  and  economy  of  it,  that  the  expli- 
cit profession  and  belief  of  them  is  implied  in  the  very 
idea  of  a  Christian.  But,  as  I  before  said,  they  both 
rest  upon  the  same  authority,  that  is,  the  word  of 
God ;  and  demand  an  equally  firm  assent?  when  sum- 


53 

ciently  proposed  to  our  understanding.  Why  are  we 
obliged  to  believe  every  fact  and  circumstance  con- 
tained in  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  as  soon  as  we 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  it  ?  Is  it,  because  nothing 
therein  is  related  which  does  not  affect  the  very  vi- 
tals of  Christianity  ?  or  is  it  not  rather,  because  divine 
authority  is  pledged  for  the  entire  truth  of  scripture  ? 
This  leads  to  a  plain  answer  to  the  objection.  All 
doctrines  taught  by  Christ  and  his  apostles,  were  de- 
livered as  necessary  to  be  believed,  whenever  the 
faithful  should  receive  sufficient  evidence  of  their  di- 
vine revelation.  But  till  they  had  that  evidence,  the 
belief  was  not  obligatory ;  and  Christians  were  at 
liberty  to  discuss  the  doctrines  with  all  freedom,  pro- 
vided they  did  so  in  an  habitual  disposition  to  submit 
to  the  authority  established  by  Jesus  Christ,  when- 
ever it  should  interfere  in  determining  the  uncertainty. 
So,  before  the  holding  of  the  first  council  at  Jerusalem, 
some  true  Christians  maintained  circumcision  to  be 
necessary.*  And  when  the  apostles  and  ancients  came  to- 
gether to  consider  of  this  matter,  there  ivas  much  disputing. 
(V.  6,  7.)  But  after  the  decision  of  the  council,  it 
pleased  the  apostles  and  the  ancients,  with  the  whole  church, 
to  issue  their  letter  or  decree  against  the  necessity  of 
circumcision,  to  which  decree  all  were  now  obliged 
to  submit,  under  pain  of  heresy.  Here  I  would  fain 
ask,  if  there  were  no  true  Catholicity  of  belief  before 
this  council ;  and  whether  this  decision  destroyed  the 
unity  of  Christ's  church.  For  after  the  decision,  all 
true  Christians  believed,  as  an  article  of  faith,  what  they 
before  conceived  to  be  matter  ofopinion.'f 

•  Acts  xv.  1.  -f  See  Chap.  Let.  p.  34* 


54 

The  Chaplain's  formidable  dilemma  (P.  33,  34.) 
turns  out  therefore  a  very  harmless  one  ;  the  doc- 
trines he  refers  to  were  delivered  as  essential,  that 
is,  I  suppose,  essentially  to  be  believed,  whenever 
they  came  to  be  sufficiently  proposed,  as  revealed  by 
God ;  but  they  were  not  essentially  to  be  believed,  till 
they  were  so  proposed.  And  the  church,  ever  guid- 
ed by  the  Spirit  of  God,  sees  when  the  dangers  threat- 
ening her  children,  from  false  prophets  arising  and  seduc- 
ing many,  (Matth.  xxiv.  11.)  call  upon  her  to  examine 
the  faith  committed  to  her  keeping,  and  preserved 
in  holy  scripture  and  the  chain  of  tradition.  In 
these  perilous  moments  she  unfolds  the  doctrines,  and 
presents  them  to  Christians  as  preservatives  from  the 
delusions  of  novelty,  the  refinements  of  false  philoso- 
phy, and  the  misinterpretations  of  private  and  pre- 
sumptuous judgment.  Thus,  when  Arius  and  his  fol- 
lowers, endeavoured  to  establish  principles  subversive 
of  the  divinity  of  the  Son  of  God,  to  check  the  growth 
of  this  error,  the  church  defined  clearly  and  explicit- 
ly, his  consubstantiality  with  the  Father.  Previous  to 
which  decision,  the  faithful  contented  themselves  with 
acknowledging  his  divine  nature  ;  but  that  the  belief 
of  it  included  consubstantiality,  was  not  yet  sufficient- 
ly proposed  to  them,  and  therefore  could  not  be  an 
object  of  their  faith. 

The  principles  indeed  of  the  Chaplain  would,  if 
admitted,  clearly  prove,  that  neither  his,  nor  the  faith 
jof  any  one,  who  admits  all  the  books  of  scripture,  is 
the  same  with  that  of  the  first  Christians  ;  nay,  more, 
that  the  faith  of  these  last  was  continually  changing, 
as  long  as  the  apostles  were  alive.  For.  he  lays  it 
down,  that  if  any  points  are  believed,  as  essential,  to- 


35 

day,  which  formerly  were  not  so  believed,  there  is  no 
longer  a  unity  of  faith.  (Let.  p.  34.)  Now,  the 
apostles  at  distant  periods  of  their  lives  sent  epistles 
and  instructions  to  the  different  churches,  which 
they  then,  and  we  now,  receive  as  of  divine  inspira- 
tion. But  did  they  not  from  these  writings  collect 
information,  which  they  had  not  before  ?  and  did  they 
not  believe  the  information  given,  as  infallibly  true  ? 
For  instance,  when  St.  Paul  wrote  his  second  epistle 
to  the  Thessalonians,  did  they  not  understand  fromit7 
contrary  to  what  they  had  before  conceived,  that  the 
last  general  judgment  was  not  immediately  to  hap- 
pen ?  If  so,  then  was  their  faith  (according  to  the 
Chaplain)  no  longer  the  same  it  had  been.  Moreover, 
some  of  Christ's  flock  died  before  any,  and  many  more 
before  all  the  apostles ;  St.  John,  it  is  known,  lived 
upwards  of  sixty  years  after  his  master's  death,  and 
wrote  his  Revelation,  and  his  Gospel  a  very  little  while 
before  his  own.  It  follows  then  again,  that  the 
Christians  who  died  without  having  either  seen  or 
heard  of  his  Gospel,  or  Revelation,  had  not  the  same 
faith  with  those  who  afterwards  saw  and  believed 
them.  These  consequences  may  be  extended  much 
farther;  and,  by  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the 
Chaplain,  it  may  be  shown,  that  for  many  ages  Chris- 
tians either  did  not  believe  essential  doctrines,  or  that 
it  is  not  essential  now  to  admit  many  books  of  scrip- 
ture, which,  nevertheless,  he  who  should  reject  would 
not  be  deemed  a  Christian.  For  it  is  notorious  that, 
long  after  the  apostles'  time,  several  scriptural  books 
were  of  uncertain  authority,  the  authors  of  them  not 
being  ascertained;  as,  for  instance,  the  Revelation, 
the  Epistle  to  the.  Hebrews,  the  second  of  St.  Peter, 


56 

the  second  and  third  of*  St.  John,  those  of  St.  Jude 
and  St.  James.  During  all  this  time,  therefore,  it 
was  not  essential  to  believe  these  writings  to  be  di- 
vinely inspired ;  but  will  the  Chaplain  say,  that  it  is 
not  now  essential  to  believe  it?  What  would  one  of 
his  controversial  heroes,  Dr.  Hurd,  say,  if  we  were 
to  deny  the  authority  of  St.  John's  Revelation  ?  For 
though  I  have  not  had  an  opportunity  to  see  his  dis- 
courses on  the  prophecies,  yet  I  conclude,  from  the  occa- 
sion of  his  preaching  them,  that  the  Revelation  has 
furnished  him  his  arguments,  such  as  they  are,  to 
prove  the  apostacy  of  papal  Rome,  as  it  did  his  prede- 
cessor Jurieu,  whose  reveries  the  illustrious  Bossuet 
exposed  as  completely  as,  I  doubt  not,  all  those  of 
the  lecturers  of  the  Warburton  foundation*  will  one 
day  be. 

To  revert  to  our  subject :  Was  all  unity  of  faith 
destroyed  in  the  church,  when  the  above-mentioned 
books  of  scripture  were  received  into  the  canon  ?  For 
it  is  certain  that  some  things  were  then  required  to 
be  believed,  which  before  were  not  required.  After 
St.  John  published  his  gospel,  wherein  are  contained 
many  things  not  related  by  the  other  evangelists,  did 
not  these  things  become  objects  of  faith,  which  before 
had  not  been  so  ?  As  long  as  the  apostles  lived,  and 
preachsd,  and  wrote  to  the  churches,  teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things,  whichsoever  their  Divine  Master  had 
commanded  them,  (Matth.  xxviii.  21.)  did  not  new  mat- 
ter continually  arise  to  exercise  the  faith  of  their  dis- 
ciples ?     If  then  it  be  any  objection  to  a  living  autho- 

*  Dr.  Warburton,  late  bishop  of  Gloucester,  founded  an  annual  course  of 
lectures,  to  prove  the  apostacy  of  papal  Rome.  Dr.  Kurd's  discourses  were 
the  first  on  this  occasion. 


51 

rity,  that  the  number  of  necessary  tenets  must  increase,  as 
decisions  multiply,  (Ch.  Let.  p.  34.,)  the  objection  is  as 
strong  against  the  authority  of  the  apostles,  which  the 
Chaplain  admits,  (P.  27.,)  as  against  that  of  a  church 
equally  endowed  with  infallibility  in  deciding  on  faith 
and  morals. 

The  Chaplain's  reasonings,  from  page  30  to  page 
34,  properly  belong  to  the  division  we  are  now  con- 
sidering ;  but  being  desirous  to  place  all  his  objections 
to  particular  tenets  of  our  church  in  one  point  of  view, 
I  shall  arrange  them  under  the  last  division.  On  this 
I  shall  enter,  after  noticing  that  the  Chaplain,  in  the 
conclusion  of  his  argument,  indulges  himself  in  some 
declamation,  which  however  carries  no  weight  with  it, 
as  long  as  the  church's  claim  to  infallibility  is  not  in- 
validated by  other  arguments,  than  those  we  have 
seen.  For,  supposing  that  claim  well  supported,  his 
forebodings  can  never  come  to  pass;  and  our  faith 
has  nothing  to  fear  from  the  additions  of  any  future 
pope  Pius.  And  here,  by  the  bye,  it  must  be  remark- 
ed, that  though  an  intimation  is  thrown  out,  (P.  35.,) 
that  Pius  IV.,  in  his  famous  creed,  imposed  new  doc- 
trines ;  yet  every  article  of  that  creed  was,  long  be- 
fore him,  a  point  of  our  belief.  This  is  known  to 
every  person  conversant  in  the  history  of  religion, 
and  is  candidly  acknowledged  by  Dr.  Bramhall,  the 
Protestant  archbishop  of  Armagh,  in  his  reply  to  the 
bishop  of  Chalcedon :  "  For,"  says  he,  "  those  very 
points,  which  Pius  IV.  comprehended  in  a  new  sym- 
bol or  creed,  were  obtruded  upon  us  before  by  his 
predecessors,  as  necessary  articles  of  the  Roman 
faith,  and  required  as  necessary  articles  of  their  com- 
munion." 


58 

To  prove  that  the  church  has  fallen  into  error,  it 
is  urged  in  the  third  place,  as  was  noticed  above, 
that  she  requires  a  belief  of  tenets,  which  even  some 
of  our  own  celebrated  divines,  acknowledge  either  not 
to  he  found  at  all  in  the  scriptures,  or  at  least  delivered  in 
them  with  great  obscurity  ;  (P.  1 9.)  and  instances  are 
given  in  the  doctrines  of  transuhstantiation  and  purga- 
tory, auricular  co?ifession  and  the  power  of  loosening 
and  binding,  or  absolution.  These  shall  now  be  distinct- 
ly considered,  as  far  as  is  necessary  to  vindicate  them 
from  the  Chaplain's  objections.  For  I  propose  pro- 
ceeding here,  as  before,  concerning  infallibility ;  that 
is,  I  shall  not  pretend  to  allege  other  proofs  of  these 
contested  doctrines,  than  such  as  may  arise  from  the 
purely  defensive  system  I  have  adopted  ;  and,  God  be 
praised,  the  grounds  of  our  faith  are  so  solid,  that,  I 
trust,  the  cause  of  truth  and  religion  will  not  be  in- 
jured, even  in  my  hands,  by  this  mode  of  repelling 
the  attacks  made  against  them. 

But  first,  supposing  it  true,  as  the  divines  mentioned 
by  the  Chaplain  are  alleged  to  have  said,  that  the 
tenets  above  cited,  are  not  to  be  found  in  scripture, 
does  it  follow,  that  they  were  not  revealed  by  Jesus 
Christ  ?  With  what  right  does  the  Chaplain  assume 
as  a  principle,  that  God  communicated  nothing  more 
to  his  church,  than  is  contained  in  his  written  word  ? 
He  knows,  that  we  have  always  asserted,  that  the 
whole  word  of  God,  unwritten,  as  well  as  written,  is 
the  Christian's  rule  of  faith.  It  was  incumbent  then 
on  him,  before  he  discarded  this  rule,  to  prove  either, 
that  no  more  was  revealed,  than  is  written  ;  or  that 
revealed  doctrines  derive  their  claim  to  our  belief, 
not  from  God's   infallible  testimony,  but  from   their 


59 

being  reduced  to  writing.  He  has  not  attempted  this; 
and  I  will  venture  to  say,  he  would  have  attempted 
it  in  vain,  even  with  the  assistance  of  his  Chilling- 
worth.  Happy  indeed  it  is  for  mankind,  that  no 
efforts  to  this  purpose  can  succeed ;  for  if  the  Catho- 
lic rule  of  faith  could  be  proved  unsafe,  what  security 
have  we  for  the  authenticity,  the  genuineness,  the  in- 
corruptibility of  scripture  itself?  How  do  we  know, 
but  by  the  tradition,  that  is,  by  the  living  doctrine  of 
the  Catholic  church,  which  are  the  true  and  genuine 
gospels  ?  Can  the  Chaplain,  with  all  his  ingenuity, 
devise,  for  instance,  any  other  solid  motive,  besides 
this  already  mentioned,  for  admitting  the  gospel  ot 
St.  Matthew  into  the  canonical  writings  ?  This  gospel, 
according  to  the  general  opinion,  was  written  in  the 
vulgar  Hebrew,  or  Syriac.  The  original  text  has 
been  lost  so  long,  that  no  traces  of  it  remain ;  who 
translated  it  into  Greek  is  quite  uncertain.  Now, 
where  is  the  written  word  of  God  assuring  us  of  the 
correspondence  of  this  translation  with  the  original  ? 
Where  shall  we  find,  but  in  the  tradition,  that  is,  in 
the  public  invariable  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  church, 
any  sufficient  reason  for  admitting  the  faithfulness  of 
the  translator  ?  Why  shall  we  not  reject  it,  as  some 
early  heretics  did,  the  Manicha?ans,  Marcionists, 
Cerdonists,  &c.  ?  I  mention  St.  Matthew's  gospel,  as 
coming  first  to  my  mind  ;  but  the  argument  is  applica- 
ble to  other  parts  of  scripture,  and  to  some  with 
much  greater  force.  The  testimony,  therefore,  of  the 
Catholic  church,  certified  in  the  tradition  of  all  ages, 
is  the  ground,  upon  which  we  and  others  admit  the 
divine    authority    of  holy   writ*     I   do  not  suppose, 

*  See  this  acknowledged  by  Dr.  Cosin,  bishop  of  Durham,  in  his  Scholmfu 
History  of  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  ch.  1.  sect.  8,  edit.  London,  167-2. 


t>0 

that  the  Chaplain,  after  rejecting  the  church's  infalli- 
bility, will  place  it,  for  the  discrimination  of  true  and 
false  gospels,  in  an  inward  light  administered  to  each 
sincere  inquirer.  I  should  be  indeed  greatly  mis- 
taken in  him,  if  he  entertain  any  such  fanatical  no- 
tions ;  his  own  Chillingworth  would  rise  up  against 
him.  But  if  the  testimony  and  tradition  of  the  Catho- 
lic church,  is  to  be  necessarily  admitted  for  receiving 
the  scripture  itself,  which,  according  to  him,  is  the  sole 
standard,  the  only  rule  of  Protestant  belief,  (P.  37.,)  why 
is  her  testimony  to  be  rejected,  when  offered  in  evi- 
dence of  other  points  of  faith  ?  Why  not  as  well  admit 
it  in  favour  of  transubstantiation  and  purgatory,  as  of 
the  lawfulness  of  infant  baptism,  of  the  validity  of 
baptism  administered  by  heretics,  of  the  obligation  of 
abstaining  on  Sundays  from  servile  works,  &c?  Scrip- 
ture authority,  for  these  and  other  points  admitted  by 
Protestants,  there  is  certainly  none  ;  and  they,  who 
have  attempted  to  offer  any,  have  only  betrayed  the 
weakness  and  nakedness  of  their  cause.  Wherefore 
St.  Chrysostom,  as  I  find  him  repeatedly  quoted  by 
authors,  whose  accuracy  I  cannot  doubt,  comment- 
ing on  these  words  of  St.  Paul,  Stand  and  hold  the  tra- 
ditions you  have  been  taught,  whether  by  word  or  by  our 
epistle,  (2  Thess.  ii.  14.  alias  15.)  observes,  that  "it 
is  plain,  that  the  apostles  did  not  deliver  all  things 
in  writing,  but  many  things  without  it ;  and  these 
ought  to  be  believed,  as  much  as  those  ;  let  us  then 
give  credit  to  the  tradition  of  the  church."*  I  have 
in  preference  cited  this  holy  father  in  support  of  the 
Catholic  doctrine,  not  because  numerous  testimonies 

*  Chrys.  hom.  3.  in  2  Thess.  2. 


61 

of  others  are  wanting,  both  more  ancient,  and,  if  pos- 
sible, more  full  and  express ;  but  because  the  Chap- 
Iain,  in  a  note,  (P.  8.,)  insists  much  upon  two  remarka- 
ble passages,  which,  he  says,  are  taken  from  the 
works  of  this  eminent  doctor. 

I  will  not  deny,  that  I  was  surprised  when  I  read 
the  first  passage  cited  by  the  Chaplain  ;  it  appeared 
so  opposite  to  the  principles  which  St.  Chrysostora 
had  laid  down  in  several  parts  of  his  works.  It  was 
a  mortifying  circumstance,  that  I  could  not  conve- 
niently have  recourse  to  that  holy  doctor's  writings, 
nor  minutely  examine  the  passage  objected,  together 
with  its  context.  I  procured  a  friend  to  examine  the 
edition  of  Chrysostom's  works,  belonging  to  the  pub- 
lic library  at  Annapolis  ;  he  has  carefully  and  repeat- 
edly read  the  49th  homily  on  St.  Matthew  ;  and  not 
one  syllable  of  the  Chaplain's  citation  is  to  be  found  in 
it.  After  receiving  this  notice,  I  was  for  some  time 
doubtful,  whether  it  might  not  be  owing-  to  a  differ- 
ence  in  the  editions.  I  could  not  persuade  myself, 
that  he,  who  so  solemnly  calls  heaven  to  witness  for 
the  impartiality  and  integrity  of  his  inquiry,  would 
publicly  expose  himself  to  a  well-grounded  imputation 
of  unpardonable  negligence,  in  a  matter  of  such  se- 
rious concern.  But  I  have  now  the  fullest  evidence, 
that  the  passage,  for  which  Chrysostom  on  Matthew, 
hom.  49.  is  quoted,  is  not  taken  from  that  father.  It 
is  extracted  from  a  work  of  no  credit,  supposed  to  be 
written  in  the  6th  century,  entitled,  The  unfinished 
work  on  Matthew*   But  had  it  even  been  fairly  quoted 

*  Opus  imper/ectum  in  Matthmim.  The  author  adopts  the  Manichrean, 
the  Montanist,  and  Arian  heresies.  In  the  first  homily,  he  says,  that  marriage  is 
a  sin.     la  the  32d,  that  second  marriage  is  only  an  honourable  fornication ;  ia 


62 

M 

from  him,  the  Chaplain  would  not  have  had  so  much 
cause  for  triumph,  as  he  imagines.  For  the  passage 
he  adduces  carries  with  it  equal  condemnation  of  the 
Protestant  and  Catholic  rule  of  faith.  It  asserts,  that 
it  is  only  then  necessary  to  discover  by  scripture  alone., 
which  is  the  true  church  of  Christ,  when  heresy  has 
all  outward  observances  in  common  with  her.  But  if  the 
outward  observances  are  not  the  same,  if  the  church 
and  heresy  do  not  agree  in  offering  the  same  un- 
bloody sacrifice  ;  in  administering  the"  same  sacra- 
ments ;  in  the  apostolical  and  uninterrupted  succes- 
sion of  their  clergy  ;  in  their  liturgy,  their  hierarchy, 
the  whole  frame  of  their  ecclesiastical  government, 
&c.  then  it  may  be  evinced  by  various  means,  other  than 
scripture,  which  is  the  true  church  of  Christ.  But  will 
this  be  admitted  by  the  Chaplain,  who  adopts  the  holy 
scripture  for  the  sole  standard  of  his  belief?  Will  it  be 
admitted  by  the  Protestant  churches  in  general,  which 
know  no  other  rule  ?  (Let.  p.  37.)  See  then  how  un- 
successfully this  authority  turns  out  for  the  Chaplain. 
In  the  first  place,  it  lays  him  under  the  reproach  of  a 
want  of  impartial  diligence;  and,  2dly,  If  it  militate 
against  us,  it  is  equally  adverse  to  that  religion,  of 
which  he  now  professes  himself  a  member. 

The  disrepute  of  alleging  the  authority  of  Chrysos- 
tom  so  erroneously,  will  not  be  compensated  by  the 
other  passage,  for  which  he  likewise  is  cited  :  and 
which,  indeed,  I  find  to  be  noticed  by  Bellarmine,  as 
o-enuine  ;  but  he  observes,  that  Chrvsostom  is  not  dis- 
coursing  of  doctrines  obscurely  delivered,  or  contest- 
ed amongst  dilfercnt  sects  of  Christians  ;  but  of  such 

the  49th,  he  calls  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the- divinity  of  Christ,  the  homou- 
sian,  or  consubstantiation  heresy. 


63 

us,  being  clearly  and  unambiguously  taught  in  holy 
writ,  are,  nevertheless,  disrelished  or  denied  by  world- 
ly-minded men  ;  who  contend,  contrary  to  the  evi- 
dent declaration  of  scripture,  that  riches  are  more 
helpful  than  hurtful  to  salvation  ;  and  of  such  Chry- 
sostom  says,  that  they  ought  to  be  disregarded,  and 
all  these  things  be  estimated  by  the  rule  of  scripture. 

But  if  the  Chaplain  insist,  that  the  direction  here 
given,  is  general  to  all  men,  who  are  advised  to  in- 
vestigate all  matters  of  faith  in  the  scripture,  without 
paying  any  regard  to  what  this  or  that  man  asserts  for 
truth  ;  I  answer  first,  that  this  direction  is  very  differ- 
ent from  that  of  Chrysostom  above  cited,  in  his  com- 
mentary on  the  2d  to  the  Thessalonians  ;  and  of  the 
learned  Vincent  of  Lerins,  whom  the  Chaplain  quotes 
with  singular  complacency.*  (P.  35.)  This  venera- 
ble writer  having  observed,  that  all  religious  innova- 
tors accumulate  texts  upon  texts  to  give  credit  to 
their  different  systems,  inquires,  what  Catholics,  what 
the  children  of  the  church  must  do  ?  How  can  they  in 
scripture  discern  truth  from  falsehood  ?  They  will 
take  care,  he  continues,  so  to  proceed — as  to  interpret 
holy  ivrit  agreeably  to  the  traditions  of  the  universal 
church,  and  the  rules  of  Catholic  doctrinc.'l 

In  the  next  place,  I  observe,  that  the  rule  of  inves- 
tigation laid  down  as  from  St.  Chrysostom,  is  insuffi- 


*  la  tliis  author,  the  Chaplain  may  find  the  clearest  condemnation  of  his 
new  religious  principles.  I  refer  him  to  the  35,  36,  37,  38,  and  39  chapters 
which  I  wish  I  could  translate  without  swelling  this  address  to  too  great  a  bulk. 

t  Quid  facient  Catholici  homines,  &  matris  ecclesiss  h'lii?  quonam  modo  in 
acripturis  Sanctis  Yeritatem  a  falsitate  discernent  ?  Hoc  scilicet  facere  cura- 
bunt,  quod  in  principio  commonitorii  istius  sanctos  viros  nobis  tradidisse  scrip- 
simus  ;  ut  divinumcanonem  secundum  universalis  ecclesix'  traditiones,  Sz  joxta 
Catholici  dogmatre  metiers  intprpretcntnr.     Vine,  IAr.  Com.  ''■  38. 


64 

cient  and  inapplicable.  Insufficient,  because  by  scrip- 
ture alone  it  is  impossible  to  determine  many  points 
necessary  to  be  believed  and  practised,  and  so  receiv- 
ed even  by  Protestants  themselves.* 

The  rule  is  moreover  inapplicable  to  much  the 
greatest  part  of  mankind  ;  and  I  am  really  ashamed 
to  enter  seriously  on  the  proof  of  it,  since  it  must  be 
evident  to  every  considerate  man  in  the  world.  For, 
if  scripture,  as  interpreted  by  private  judgment^  is  the 
only  rule  which  all  are  to  follow?  neglecting  what  this 
or  that  man  asserts  for  truth  ;  if  all  are  to  investigate  all 
disputed  things  in  the  scriptures,  it  plainly  follows,  that 
the  laborious  husbandman,  the  illiterate  mechanic,  the 
poor  ignorant  slave,  are  to  acquire  the  knowledge  in 
languages,  and  the  critical  discernment  necessary  to 
compare  translation  with  translation,  text  with  text. 
For  without  this  comparison  and  many  other  precau- 
tions, they  never  can  form  a  reasonable  judgment  of 
the  sense  of  scripture;  nor  can  they  be  sure  of  that 
book  being  scripture,  which  is  put  into  their  hands  as 
such.  If  to  relate  this  prodigious  opinion  be  not 
enough  to  refute  it,  all  argument,  even  demonstration 
itself,  will  be  of  no  avail. 

The  Chaplain  seems  to  be  aware  of  its  glaring  ab- 
surdity;  and  therefore,  in  a  note,  (P.  18.,)  he  says, 
that  they  who  are  unqualified  to  enter  upon  such  in- 
quiries as  he  made,  must  rely  principally  upon  the  au- 
thority of  their  teachers  ;  and  he  quotes  the  bishop  of 
Chester  as  recommending  the  same.  Thus  then,  af- 
ter citing  with  so  much  complacency  a  pretended  pas- 

*  See  p.  60  of  this  Address,  and  Mumford's  Question  of  Questions,  point 
first  and  second, 
t  Chaplain's  note,  p.  9. 


65 

sage  of  St.  Chrysostom  ;  after  bidding  defiance  to  our 
divines  to  explain  away  the  saint's  doctrine,  requir- 
ing all  of  us  to  neglect  what  this  or  that  man,  even  him- 
self or  the  bishop  of  Chester,  asserts  for  truth  ;  but  to 
investigate  all  things  in  the  scriptures  ;  after  this,  I  will 
not  say,  that  he  himself  unravels  the  difficulty  with  fine- 
spun subtlety  like  a  modern  schoolman  ;*  but,  like  an 
Alexander,  he  cuts  the  knot  at  once,  and  refers  us  to 
the  authority  of  our  teachers. 

While  the  Chaplain's  letter  is  before  me,  I  feel 
other  impressions  too  strongly  upon  my  mind  to  in- 
dulge in  the  satisfaction,  which  it  might  otherwise  sug- 
gest, to  observe,  that  after  decrying  the  dead  weight  of 
authority;  (P.  13.;)  after  exalting  private  judgment,  as 
the  sole  interpreter  of  scripture,  (P.  9.,)  he  is  obliged 
to  confess,  that  the  generality  of  mankind,  must  be 
guided  in  religious  matters,  principally  by  the  authority 
of  their  teachers ;  for  he  will  hardly  deny,  that  the 
generality  of  mankind  are  neither  by  education,  nor 
abilities,  nor  leisure,  qualified  to  enter  upon  the  inquiries 
necessary  to  judge  for  themselves.  Did  Jesus  Christ 
then  leave  a  rule  of  faith  so  inadequate,  as  not  to  be 
capable  of  application  to  much  the  largest  portion  of 
mankind  ?  Do  the  Protestant  churches  in  general  know 
no  other  rule  (Letter,  p.  37.)  than  one  so  miserably 
defective  ?  and  if  defective  now,  what  must  it  have 
been  before  the  discovery  of  the  art  of  printing,  when 
the  knowledge  of  letters  was  so  rare,  comparatively 
with  the  present  times;  and  it  was  morally  impossi- 
ble, to  multiply  manuscripts  sufficient  to  supply  every 


Note,  p.  9. 


66 

individual  with  the  means,  even  if  he  had  the  ability, 
to  study  scripture  ? 

But  who  are  the  teachers,  to  whose  authority  the 
generality  of  mankind  are  referred  ?  Are  they  any, 
however  introduced  to  the  exercise  of  that  public 
function  ?  This  indeed  may  be  a  doctrine  well  enough 
suited  to  latitudinarians  in  religion,  or  the  scoffers  at 
all  religion;  but  surely  not  very  agreeable  to  the  prin- 
ciples of  a  Christian.  Must  the  teachers  then,  whose 
authority  is  to  be  so  respected,  be  the  regular  and 
authorized  ministry  of  the  country  ?  What  if  that 
country  should  be  Turkey,  and  the  ministers  the  de- 
luded disciples  of  Mahomet  ?  What  if  it  should  be  a 
country  blessed,  like  this,  with  unlimited  toleration, 
and  giving  equal  countenance  to  the  professors  and 
teachers  of  every  denomination  of  Christians  ?  In  this 
case,  the  unlettered,  that  is,  the  far  greater  part  of 
the  community,  are  directed  indeed  by  the  Chaplain 
and  the  bishop  of  Chester  to  follow  their  teachers ; 
but  by  what  criterion  they  are  to  choose  their  teach- 
ers, does  not  appear.  If  by  their  doctrine,  if  by  scrip- 
ture, all  the  labour  recoils  back  again  upon  the  un- 
informed multitude,  without  education,  abilities,  or 
leisure  to  go  through  with  it.  On  one  hand,  they  are 
constrained  to  adopt  Seneca's  rule;*  and  on  the  other, 
they  cannot  possibly  comply  with  it;  they  would  fain 
follow  the  instructions  of  a  faithful  teacher;  but  how 
to  distinguish  him  from  a  seduced  or  seducing  oneP 
they  know  not.  I  disdain  taking  notice  of  the  insinua- 
tions so  scandalously  false,  thrown  out  by  the  bishop 
of  Chester,   as  if  we  discountenanced   free   inquiry. 

*  Omnia  dclibera  cum  amico ;  sed  prius  delibera  de  amico. 


67 

From  what  was  said  in  the  beginning  of  this  address, 
you  may  judge  how  undeserved  they  are.  His  lord- 
ship is  pleased  to  add,  that  whatever  things  are  necessa- 
ry to  be  believed,  are  easy  to  be  understood.  (P.  18,  note.) 
Are  not  all  doctrines  laid  down  in  scripture,  and  par- 
ticularly those  contained  in  the  apostles'  creed,  neces- 
sary to  be  believed?  So  at  least  the  Chaplain  teaches. 
(P.  35.)  In  these  is  delivered  the  tenet  of  three  di- 
vine persons,  that  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of 
God,  and  of  his  descent  into  hell.  Are  these  things 
easy  to  be  understood  ?  However  they  may  appear 
to  the  bishop,  they  have  been  generally  accounted 
mysteries  incomprehensible  to  human  understanding. 
We  likewise  direct  all  to  rely,  in  matters  of  faith, 
on  their  teachers,  while  they  exercise  their  functions 
uncontradicted  and  unreproved  by  the  body  of  pas- 
tors, or  their  superiors  in  the  hierarchy.  But  then 
their  mission  is  established  on  a  fact  of  public  noto- 
riety, the  investigation  of  which  requires  no  laborious 
discussion.  They  can  trace  an  uninterrupted  succes- 
sion of  their  ministry  to  the  apostles,  and  consequent- 
ly to  Christ  himself.  As  Christ  sent  his  apostles  to 
teach  all  nations,  baptizing  and  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whichsoever  he  had  commanded ;  so  did  they 
send  other  pastors,  to  discharge  the  same  functions 
as  themselves.  They  could  not  preach  at  all  times, 
and  in  all  places  ;  they  therefore  appointed  disciples 
to  found  other  churches,  as  they  themselves  had 
founded,  and  to  exercise  therein  the  same  ministry. 
The  pastors,  thus  associated  to  the  apostles,  succes- 
sively admitted  others ;  and  this  apostolical  body, 
that  is,  the  body  of  the  envoys  of  Jesus  Christ,  has 
never  ceased.  When  new  members  are  incorporated 


68 

into  it,  they  receive  from  him  the  same  commission  of 
teaching  and  administering  the  sacraments ;  the 
church  of  Christ  cannot  exist,  without  the  preaching 
of  the  gospel ;  and  preaching,  according  to  St.  Paul, 
is  not  to  be  exercised  without  a  mission  ;  how  will  they 
preach  if  they  be  not  sent?  (Rom.  x.  15.^)  so  that  the 
church  and  this  apostolical  body  must  always  subsist 
together,  and  can  never  be  separated. 

From  these  truths,  founded  on  a  plain  matter  of 
fact,  an  argument  is  deduced  equally  clear  and  con- 
vincing. It  is  as  certain,  that  the  apostles  appointed 
other  pastors  to  succeed  them,  as  it  is,  that  they  founded 
churches.  The  actual  pastors,  then,  of  these  churches, 
descending  in  a  lawful  and  unbroken  line  of  succes- 
sion from  them,  are  certainly  sent  by  the  apostles, 
and  by  Christ  himself,  since  those  churches  have  al- 
ways subsisted,  and  still  subsist.  Thus  our  faith  is 
as  assured  and  well  grounded,  in  believing  the  public 
doctrines  delivered  by  these  teachers,  as  it  could  have 
been,  in  receiving  the  preaching  of  the  apostles  them- 
selves. 

No  books,  no  erudition  is  here  necessary.  The  il- 
literate, as  well  as  learned  Christian  can  easily  be 
certified  of  the  fact  on  which  the  reasoning  is  found- 
ed. The  prerogative  of  tracing  to  the  apostles  an 
ordinary  and  regular  succession  of  pastors,  is  so  pecu- 
liar a  prerogative  of  the  Catholic  church,  that  no 
other  society  can  dispute  it  with  her,  or  appropriate 
it  to  themselves.*  To  this  succession  the  primitive  ■ 
fathers  constantly  appeal,  as  demonstrative  evidence 
of  the  true  church,  and  challenge  sectaries  to  exhibit 

*  See  Bergier,  Deisme  Refute,  Szc.  let.  4. 


69 


a  like  title  to  the  divine  commission  of  teaching  and 
administering  the  sacraments.* 

After  having  thus  shown,  both  from  the  nature  of 
the  thing,  and  the  Chaplain's  own  acknowledgment, 
that  scripture  alone  is  not  a  general  and  sufficient 
rule  of  faith,  I  might  well  contend,  that  transubstantia- 
tion,  purgatory,  auricular  confession,  and  the  power  of 
absolving,  are  to  be  received  as  Christian  doctrines, 
on  the  authority  of  the  church,  though  no  mention 
were  made  of  them  in  scripture.  But  for  your  en- 
tire satisfaction,  I  will  now  consider  particularly  all 
that  has  been  advanced  on  the  other  side  respecting 
these  articles  of  our  faith. 

To  begin  with  transubsiantiation,  the  Chaplain  as- 
serts, (P.  32.,)  that  the  doctrine  conveyed  by  that  word 
was  no  article  of  faith  prior  to  the  council  of  Lateran,  in 
1215  ;  and  for  proof  of  it  he  refers  to  Scotus,  as  cited 
by  Bellarmine,  /.  3.  de  Euch.  c.  23.  When  I  read  this 
passage  of  the  Chaplain's  letter,  I  thought  it  remarka- 
ble in  him  to  allege  Scotus's  testimony  to  prove  a 
point  of  ecclesiastical  history  ;  the  subtleties  of  the 
school  were  much  better  suited  to  that  author's  spe- 
culative genius,  than  a  critical  examination  of  histori- 
cal facts.  And  it  was  becoming  the  Chaplain's  can- 
dour to  have  acknowledged  it,  when  he  saw  evident 
proofs  of  Scotus's  inaccuracy  in  the  place  cited  out  of 
Bellarmine  ;  who  observes,  that  Scotus  could  never 
have  seen  the  deer  es  of  the  councils  held  at  Rome 
against  Berengarius,  the  first  in  the  year  1060,  and 
the   second   1079,  in   which  the  doctrine  of  transub- 

*  See  Irenaus  contr.  Ha?r.  !.  ?<.  c.  3.  Terlul.  1.  de  prftscr.  c.  32.  Opt. 
Mi1:.-  1.  2.  coat.  farm.  .August,  inps.  contra  par.  Donati,  &  lib.  contra  ep. 
Fund.  cap.  4. 


70 

stantiation  was  asserted  ;  and  Berengarius,  who  had 
impugned  it,  retracted  his  error.* 

The  Chaplain  continues,  that  towards  the  begin- 
ning of  the  9th  century,  Paschasius  Radbertus  publish- 
ed his  treatise  upon  the  corporal  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
Eucharist  ;  and,  as  Bellarmine  tells  us,  was  the  first  who 
ivrote  seriously  and  copiously  concerning  it.  (Ibid.)  For 
this,  he  cites  Bellarmine  de  Scriptoribus  Ecclesiashcis. 
Does  not  every  person  who  reads  this  passage,  un- 
derstand it  to  import,  that,  according  to  Bellarmine, 
Paschasius  Radbertus  was  the  first  who  wrote  serious- 
ly and  copiously  concerning  the  corporeal  presence  of 
Christ  in  the  Eucharist  ?  Now  let  us  hear  Bellarmine 
himself;  and  then  let  every  one  judge,  whether  the 
Chaplain  has  carried  into  his  researches  after  truth, 
all  that  impartiality  and  painful  investigation,  men- 
tioned in  his  seventh  page.  Thus  then  Bellarmine,  in 
the  book  cited  by  him  :  "  This  author  (Paschasius 
Radbertus)  was  the  first  who  wrote  seriously  and  co- 
piously of  the  reality  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Lord  in  the  Eucharist,  against  Bertram  the  priest,  who 
was  one  of  the  first  that  called  it  in  question."1^  Is  it  the 
same  thing  to  be  the  first  to  write  fully  on  the  real 
presence,  and  the  first  to  write  fully  on  that  subject 
against  Bertram,  who  impugned  it  ?  Does  not  the 
former  sense,  suggested  by  the  Chaplain,  imply  that 
Paschasius  was  the  first  to  establish  a  new  doctrine  ? 
and,  is  not  Bellarmine's  real  meaning,  that  Paschasius 

•  See  Berenjarius's  Retractations,  and  his  Profession  of  Faith,  in  Bellarmine, 
J.  3.  de  Euch.  c.Sl. 

t  Hir.  au<  tor  primus  fuit,  qui  serid  &  c.opioce  scripsit  de  veritate  corporis 
&  sanguinis  Domini  in  Eu  -haristia.  contra  Bertramum  presbyterum,  qui  fuit  ex 
primix.  rpii  ram  in  dubium  revocarunt.  Bell,  de  Scrip.  Eccl.  ad.  an.  820,  de 
Pascbasto  Radberto, 


71 

was  the  first  to  defend  an  established  doctrine  against 
a  recent  opposer  of  it  ? 

But  let  us  proceed  ;  and  we  shall  find  Paschasius 
himself  clearly  showing,  that  his  view  and  design 
was,  not  to  set  forth  a  new  doctrine  ;  but  to  expound 
that  which  was  common  in  the  church  ;  though  the 
Chaplain  says  otherwise.  This  monk,  says  he^  mean- 
ing Paschasius,  informs  us  himself,  that  his  doctrine  was 
by  no  means  universal  or  settled*  Let  us  now  see, 
how  he  gives  us  this  information  ;  and  let  his  letter 
to  Frudegardus  (for  to  that  the  Chaplain  refers)  de- 
termine the  point.  In  this  very  letter,  then,  he  says, 
that  "  though  some,  through  ignorance,  err  in  this 
point,  yet  not  one  openly  contradicts,  what  the  whole 
world  believes  and  professes."f  Here  you  will  ob- 
serve, that  Paschasius  says,  that  not  one  was  found 
openly  to  contradict  his  doctrine  on  the  Eucharist ; 
and  that  it  was  believed  and  professed  by  the  whole 
world.  Is  this  to  inform  us,  that  his  doctrine  was  by 
no  means  universal  or  settled?  But  let  us  hear  him 
farther.  "  If  any  man,"  says  he,  in  the  same  place, 
"  should  oppose  this  truth,  rather  than  believe  it,  let 
him  take  care  what  he  is  doing;  against  the  Lord  him- 
self,  and  the  whole  church  of  Christ.  For  it  is  a  horri- 
ble crime  to  join  in  prayer  with  all,  and  not  to  be- 
lieve what  truth  itself  attests,  and  what  every  where, 
all  universally  confess  to  be  true. "J     From  these  pas- 

*  Letter,  p.  32. 

t  Quamvis  ex  hoc  quidam  de  ignorantin  errent,  nemo  tamen  est  adhuc  iu 
aperto,  qui  hoc  ita  esse  contradicat,  quod  totus  orbis  credit  &  confitetur. 
Pasch.  Radb.  epis.  ad  Frudeg.  Bibl.  P.  P.  torn.  9   par.  1.  pag.  24G. 

\  Videat,  qui  contra  hoc  venire  voluerit,  quid  ngat  contra  ipsum  Dominum; 
&  contra  omnem  Christi  ecclesiam.    Nefarium  ergo  scelus  est  orare  cum  omni- 
bus, &  non  credere;  quod  Veritas  ipsa  testatur,  8c  ubiqv.t  omnes  nniver 
v^ rum  esse  fatentur.     lb  ■' 


72 

sages,  it  is  evident,  that  the  Chaplain  could  not  make 
a  more  unfortunate  reference,  to  prove  what  he   in- 
tended, than   to   Paschasius's    letter   to   Frudegard. 
But,   continues   he,    Paschasius,  in   this   very   letter, 
speaking  of  the  corporal  presence,  says,  you  question  mc 
upon  a  subject  about  which  mayiy  are  doubtful.     (P.  32.) 
Does  Paschasius  indeed  say  so  ?    It  would  strangely 
contradict   what  he  has  already  told   us.      Let   us 
therefore  return  to  the  letter,  and  hear  him  himself. 
It  appears  from  its  contents,  that   Frudegard  was   a 
young  monk,  who  had  read  in  one  of  St.  Augustin's 
works  a  passage  that  perplexed  him  j  and  that  he  ap- 
plied to  Paschasius,  as  his  master,  to  explain  the  diffi- 
culty.*    I  will  venture  to  assert,  that  the  passage  in 
the  note  is  all  the  Chaplain's  foundation  for  saying, 
as  if  they  were  the  words  of  Paschasius  himself,  that 
many  were  doubtful  of  the  real  presence  in  the  Eucha- 
rist.    Is  it  possible,  that  Paschasius  should  acknow- 
ledge this  in  the  very  letter,  wherein  he  informs  his 
scholar,  that  the  whole  church  professes  the   doctrine 
he  delivers  ?    That  not  even  one  person  was   found 
openly  to  contradict  it  ?    The  young  man  himself  ac- 
knowledges, that  he  had  always  believed  the   real 
presence,  which  shows,  that  it  was  at  that  time  the 
common  doctrine  of  the  church,  in  which  young  per- 
sons were  educated  ;   he  informs  Paschasius,  that  a 
perplexity  had  arisen  in  his  mind,  not  from  hearing 
any  public  instruction   of  the  pastors  of  the  church, 
contrary  to  the  real  presence,  but  from  some  expres- 

*  Di<is  tc  antea  credidisse  ;  setl  profiteris,  quod  in  libro  dc  doctrina  Chris- 
iiana  Beati  Augustini  legisti,  quod  typica  sit  locutio  :  quod  si  figurata  locutio 
est,  est  schema  polius,  quam  Veritas  ;  nescio,  inquis,  qualiter  illud  sumere  de- 
beam.  F.p.  ad  Prude,  ibid. 


73 

sions  of  St.  Augustin.  He  applies  to  Paschasius  to 
explain  the  difficulty,  relying  on  his  knowledge  and 
orthodoxy ;  he  does  not  conclude  from  the  passage  of 
Augustin,  that  it  inclined  him  to  change  his  faith,  but 
expresses  an  uncertainty  as  to  its  meaning.  /  know 
not  how  I  am  to  understand  it.  How  then  will  the 
Chaplain  make  good  his  assertion,  that  Paschasius, 
in  his  letter  to  Frudegard,  acknowledges,  that  many 
doubted  of  the  corporal  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucha- 
rist ? 

He  next  alleges  Rabanus  Maurus,  as  one  who,  about 
the  year  847,  wrote  expressly  against  the  novelty  oj  this 
doctrine,  in  a  letter  to  Heribaldus,  bishop  of  Auxerre*  I 
apprehend  that  here  again,  the  Chaplain  has  followed 
an  unfaithful  guide  ;  whom  I  suspect  to  be  the  French 
Huguenot  Aubertin,  or  Albertinus.  For  the  Chaplain 
cites  his  work  on  the  Eucharist,  as  one  of  those  which 
operated  in  him  a  conviction  of  his  former  errors  ;f 
and  I  observe  a  great  affinity  between  the  mistakes 
already  noticed  in  the  Chaplain's  citations,  and  those 
which  were  detected  in  Aubertin,  by  the  author  of  La 
perpetuite  de  lafoi.  Now,  though  I  will  not  say  posi- 
tively, that  Rabanus  has  no  such  words  in  his  letter 
to  Heribaldus,  (for  I  really  neither  have,  nor  can  any 
where  hear  of  its  being  to  be  found  in  America,)  yet  it 
may,  I  think,  be  inferred  from  Fleury's  Ecclesiastical 
History,  that  Rabanus  did  not  write  his  letter  to  He- 
ribaldus expressly  against  the  novelty  of  Paschasius' 's  doc- 
trine, as  the  Chaplain  says  ;  (P.  32. ;)  and  I  much  ques- 
tion, whether  he  so  much  as  mentions  it  in  that  letter. 
For,  according  to  Flcury,  Hist.  Eccles.book  49,  an.  859. 


*  Let.  p.  32.  t  JVote,  p.  29. 

10 


74 

the  express  purpose  of  Rabanus's  writing  to  Heribal- 
dus,  was,  to  answer  him  on  many  penitential  cases, 
concerning  which  the  latter  had  consulted  him,  Raba- 
nus  being  then  archbishop  of  Mentz. 

But  as  I  wish  to  inform  your  faith  at  the  same  time 
that  I  am  endeavouring  to  confirm  it,  I  will  add  from 
Fleury,  that  there  is  extant  an  anonymous  writing 
against  Paschasius,  which  is  thought,  with  much  pro- 
bability, to  be  a  letter  from  Rabanus  to  Egil,  abbot  of 
Prum ;  and  it  is  not  unlikely,  that  the  passage  quoted 
by  the  Chaplain  (P.  32.)  is  taken  from  this  writing. 

But  what  is  the  purport  of  the  letter  ?  Is  it  to  dis- 
pute the  real  presence,  and  transubstantiation  ?  No, 
certainly }  for  the  author  of  it  clearly  professes  these 
doctrines,  and  begins  his  letter  with  these  words  : 
44  All  the  faithful  must  believe  and  confess,  that  the 
body  and  blood  of  our  Lord  is  true  flesh  and  true 
blood  ;  whoever  denies  it,  shows  himself  an  infidel." 
And  a  little  after :  "  I  add,  that  as  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  true  Lamb  of  God,  who  is  mystically  offered 
every  day  for  the  life  of  the  world  ;  so,  by  consecra- 
tion and  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  bread  be- 
comes his  true  flesh,  and  the  wine  his  true  blood, 
which  is  so  certain,  that  no  Christian  must  doubt  it."* 

The  purport  then  of  this  writing  against  Pascha- 
sius, was,  to  censure  some  modes  of  speech  used  by  him 
in  explaining  the  Eucharist.  For,  he  had  said,  that 
the  body  of  our  Lord,  which  the  faithful  receive  in 
communion,  is  the  same  body  that  was  born  of  the 
Virgin  Mary.  This  expression  appeared  to  Rabanus 
particularly  obnoxious,  though  it  was  undoubtedly 

*  Fleury,  ibid. 


15 

authorized  by  former  usage.  It  was  therefore  reject- 
ed by  him,  and  thought  improper,  as  not  conveying  an 
idea  of  the  different  manner  in  which  Christ's  body 
and  blood  exist  in  their  natural  state,  and  that  which 
they  have  in  the  sacrament.  In  the  former,  they  are 
palpable  and  sensible ;  in  the  latter,  they  exist  in  a 
manner  supernatural  and  mysterious. 

Paschasius  maintained  the  propriety  of  his  lan- 
guage in  treating  on  this  subject,  in  which  dispute 
many  others  took  part.  Ratramus,  or  Bertram,  wrote, 
by  order  of  Charles  the  Bald,  a  treatise  on  the  body 
and  blood  of  our  Lord  ;  but  that  he  was  employed  ex- 
pressly by  that  prince  to  oppose  Paschasius,  is  a  fact  no 
where  proved,  though  confidently  asserted  by  the 
Chaplain.  The  French  author  of  the  Perpetuity  of 
the  Faith,  &c.  says  expressly,  that  Ratramus  does  not 
so  much  as  mention  Pal&hasius's  name  ;  he  objects,  in- 
deed, to  the  expression  used  by  him,  but,  at  the  same 
time,  he  plainly  asserts  in  many  passages  the  Catho- 
lic doctrine  ;  and  Boileau,  the  celebrated  Sorbonist, 
has  proved,  that  Bellarmine  and  others,  were  mistak- 
en in  thinking  he  was  an  adversary  to  it;  as  well  as  in 
saying,  that  Paschasius  wrote  against  him  his  treatise 
of  the  reality  of  Chris? s  body  and  blood,  &c.  For  the  oc- 
casion of  Paschasius's  writing  was,  to  instruct  the 
Saxons,  then  lately  converted  to  Christianity. 

I  will  not  swell  this  address  with  copying  from  Ra- 
tramus many  passages  to  prove  his  belief  of  the  real 
presence  and  transubstantiation.  Amongst  others, 
this  is  one.  "  The  bread  which  is  offered,  is,  at  con- 
secration, changed  into  the  body  of  Christ ;  as  like- 
wise the  wine,  expressed  from  the  grape,  is  made 
blood  by  the  significancy,"  or  efficacy  '*  of  the  sacred 


76 

mystery ;  not  indeed  visibly,  but  by  the  invisible  ope- 
ration of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whence  they  are  called 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  because  they  are  re- 
ceived not  for  that  which  they  outwardly  appear,  but 
for  that  which  they  are  made  by  the  intimate  action 
of  the  divine  Spirit;  and  because  they  are  quite  an- 
other thing  through  invisible  power,  than  what  they 
visibly  appear."*  This,  I  think,  is  abundantly  suffi- 
cient to  show,  that  the  disagreement  between  Pascha- 
sius  and  Ratramus,  consisted  not  in  a  difference  of 
opinion  respecting  the  real  presence  and  transubstan- 
tiation. 

We  see,  continues  the  Chaplain,  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  carnal  presence  was  no  sooner  openly  maintained,  than 
some  of  the  most  celebrated  doctors  of  the  time  arose  to 
combat  it,  without  incurring  any  suspicion  of  heresy  from 
their  opponents.  (P.  33.)  We  ^ave,  I  think,  seen  di- 
rectly the  contrary.  We  have  heard  Rabanus  say, 
that,  by  consecration,  and  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the 
bread  becomes  the  true  flesh,  and  the  wine  the  true  blood, 
of  Christ,  which  is  so  certain,  that  no  christian  must 
doubt  it.  And,  indeed,  it  would  be  a  most  extraordi- 
nary thing,  that  Rabanus  should  write  expressly  against 
the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  ;  and  yet,  that  Baronius, 
an  historian  so  fervently  attached  to  the  doctrines  of 
the  Catholic  church,  should  style  him  the  brightest  lu- 
minary of  Germany.     (Ch.  let.  p.  32.) 

We  have  heard  Ratramus,  in  the  last  paragraph 
but  one,  deliver  no  less  clearly  the  doctrine  of  the 
real  presence  and  transubstantiation  ;  and  if  even  they 
assert  it  so  evidently,  whom  the  Chaplain  has  select 

*  Ratrarn.  ap  auct.  Perp.  de  lafoi. 


77 

ed  out  of  all  antiquity,  as  most  favourable  to  his  cause. 
I  need  not  have  recourse  to  other  authors,  their  co- 
temporaries,  to  prove,  that  a  suspicion  of  heresy  would 
have  been  incurred  by  those,  who  should  have  openly 
combated  the  above-said  tenets. 

Finally,  we  have  heard  Paschasius  represent  the 
doctrine  of  the  real  presence,  as  that  of  the  universal 
church,  and  publicly  affirm  that  it  had  not  so  much  as 
one  open  adversary.  Where  then  is  the  convincing 
proof,  that,  at  the  period  indicated  by  the  Chaplain,  the 
doctrine  of  the  carnal  presence  was  regarded  merely  as 
matter  of  opinion,  and  so  continued  for  200  years  ?*  I  flat- 
ter myself,  on  the  contrary,  that  I  have  alleged  from 
Paschasius  and  Rabanus  convincing  proofs  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  carnal  presence  being  at  that  time  the 
established  sense  of  the  church ;  and  other  proofs 
more  decisive  will  be  added  hereafter. 

The  Chaplain  says,  (P.  31.,)  that  the  term  transub- 
stantiation  was  unknown  till  an  obscure  bishop  invent- 
ed it,  eleven  hundred  years  after  the  time  of  the 
apostles.  The  bishop  here  meant  is  Stephen  of  Autun, 
who  lived  about  the  year  950,  that  is  850,  not  1,100 
years  after  the  time  of  the  apostles,  St.  John  having 
lived  to  the  year  101  of  the  Christian  era,  according 
to  the  common  opinion.  I  mention  this,  not  for  the 
sake  of  any  advantage  I  mean  to  make  of  the  Chap- 
lain's mistake,  but  merely  to  show,  that  he  did  not 
bestow  on  his  investigation,  all  that  scrupulous  atten- 
tion, with  which  he  flatters  himself.  However,  Ste- 
phen was  the  first  to  make  use  of  the  term  transub- 
stantiation.   I  admit  without  hesitation,  that  it  is  not  to 

*  Let.  p.  33, 


78 

be  met  with  in  any  more  ancient  author ;  but  as  our 
dispute  is  not  about  words,  but  things,  the  Chaplain 
can  derive  no  more  advantage  from  this  fact,  than  an 
Arian,  or  Nestorian  can  from  the  terms  consubstantial 
or  Sto'rox.oc;,  being  never  used  before  the  first  council  of 
Nice,  and  that  of  Ephesus.  The  term  transubstantia- 
tion,  was  found  to  convey  a  precise  idea  of  Catholic- 
doctrine,  and  so  became  adopted  by  the  council  of 
Lateran  into  ecclesiastical  language ;  all  which  is  per- 
fectly agreeable  to  ancient  practice,  as  attested  by 
Vincent  of  Lerins  :  "  The  Catholic  church,"  says  he, 
"  moved  thereunto  by  the  innovations  of  heretics, 
has  always  attended  to  this  point  in  the  decrees  of 
her  councils  ;  that  is,  to  transmit  to  posterity,  with  the 
attestation  of  written  authority,  what  she  before  re- 
ceived by  tradition  alone  ;  comprehending  much  mat- 
ter in  few  words ;  and  for  the  better  understanding, 
oftentimes  expressing  an  ancient  doctrine,  by  a  new 
word  of  determinate  signification."* 

You  have  already  seen  how  much  the  Chaplain 
was  mistaken  in  saying,  that  the  doctrine  conveyed 
by  the  word  transubstantiation,  was  no  article  of  faith 
before  the  year  1215.  But,  considering  that  his  as- 
sertions coincide  with  the  prevailing  prejudices  in  this 
country,  I  find  myself  obliged  to  sacrifice  my  desire 
of  shortening  this  address,  to  the  necessity  of  fully 
manifesting  an  error  adopted  from  Aubertin,  or  Dr. 
Cosin's  History  of  Transubstantiation ;  for  I  cannot 
persuade  myself,  that  he  gave  so  much  credit  to 
Scotus,  as  to  take  it  up  on  his  authority. 

In  a  council  held  at  Rouen  in  Normandy,  on  occa- 

*  Vmc.Lir.  Coram,  c.  32* 


79 

,ion  of  Berengarius's  heresy,  an.  1063,  the  fathers  of 
the  council  thus  express  their  belief:  "  With  our 
hearts  we  believe,  and  with  our  tongues  we  confess, 
that  the  bread  on  the  Lord's  table  is  only  bread  be- 
fore consecration ;  but  that  the  nature  and  substance 
of  bread  is,  at  the  very  time  of  consecration,  by  the 
unspeakable  power  of  God,  changed  into  the  nature  and 
substance  of  that  flesh  which  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary 
— and  that  the  wine,  which  is  mixed  with  water  in  the 
cup,  is  truly  and  essentially  changed  into  the  blood  which 
mercifully  flowed,  for  the  world's  redemption,  from 
the  side  of  our  blessed  Saviour,  when  wounded  by- 
the  soldier's  lance."* 

In  the  Roman  council,  an.  1079,  Berengarius  re- 
tracted his  error,  and  professed  the  Catholic  faith  in 
these  words  :  "  I  Berengarius,  with  my  heart  believe, 
and  with  my  tongue  profess,  that  the  bread  and  wine? 
which  are  placed  on  the  altar,  are,  by  the  mystical 
prayer  and  words  of  our  Redeemer,  substantially 
changed  into  the  true,  proper,  and  life-giving  flesh  ami 
blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."^ 

Six  years  after  Berengarius's  death,  viz.  1094,  a 
numerous  council  was  held  at  Placentia,  of  many 
bishops  of  Italy,  France,  Germany,  &c.  wherein  it 
was  again  defined,  "  that  bread  and  wine,  when  con- 
secrated on  the  altar,  are  not  only  figuratively,  but 
truly  and  essentially  changed  into  the  body  and  blood  of 
our  Lord^X  Eight  or  nine  other  councils  were  held 
during  the  same  century,  mostly  in  Italy  and  France, 
and    all    of    them   equally    condemn     BerengariusV 

-!  See  the  decrees  of  this  council,  published  by  the  learned  Mabillpn^ 

t  Ap.  Bell.  lib.  3.  de  Euch.  c.  21. 

t  Labbe,  C.  C\  torn.  10.  ap<id.  anct.  Ttvv  Ch.  of  Cftrfef 


opinion;  so  true  it  is,  that  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation was  universally  received  as  an  article  of 
faith,  long  before  the  year  1215. 

When  Berengarius  first  published  his  erroneous 
opinion  of  the  real  presence,  and  transubstantiation, 
between  the  years  1038  and  1050 ;  it  was  instantly  re- 
jected universally,  and  concluded  to  be  repugnant  to 
faith.  Adelmanus,  who  had  been  brought  up  with 
him  under  the  discipline  of  Fulbert,  bishop  of  Char- 
tres,  and  became  himself  bishop  of  Brixen,  wrote  Be- 
rengarius a  letter,  expressed  with  much  tenderness 
and  charity,  wherein  he  tells  his  friend,  that  a  "  re- 
port was  spread  of  his  being  severed  from  the  unity 
of  the  church,  by  holding  a  doctrine  contrary  to  the 
Catholic  faith,  concerning  the  body  and  blood  of  the 
Lord,  which  is  immolated  every  day  on  the  altar." 
See  the  passage  at  length  in  the  Perpetuite  de  la  foi, 
1st  section.  This  letter  was  written  before  any  coun- 
cil had  been  held  against  Berengarius ;  and  yet  Adel- 
manus tells  him,  that  his  doctrine  was  deemed  to  be 
contrary  to  Catholic  faith  and  unity  :  a  manifest  proof 
of  the  real  presence  and  transubstantiation,  being  re- 
garded as  tenets  of  the  church  antecedently  to  Be- 
rengarius's  error. 

Lanfrank,  who  afterwards  became  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  was  present  at  the  council  he!d  at  Rome 
against  Bcreng-arius,  an.  1059,  and  wrote  a  treatise 
on  the  reality  of  the  body  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist.  In 
the  very  beginning  of  it  he  says,  that  Berengarius 
first  "  began  to  entertain  an  opinion  against  the  whole 
world ;"  and  afterwards,  that  he  "  composed  a  wri- 
ting against  the  Catholic  verity,  and  against  the  sen- 


81 

timent  of  all  the  churches."*  And  in  his  18th  chap* 
ter,  he  thus  states  the  Catholic  doctrine  :  "  We  be- 
lieve, that  the  earthly  substances  of  bread  and  wine, 
being  consecrated  on  the  altar  by  divine  institution, 
and  the  ministry  of  priests,  are  changed,  by  the  unspeak- 
able, incomprehensible,  and  miraculous  operation  of  JlU 
mighty  power,  into  the  substance  of  our  horoVs  body. — > 
This  is  the  faith  which  the  church,  that  being  spread 
through  the  world  is  called  Catholic,  has  held  in  all 
ages,  and  continues  still  to  hold."f  The  same  thing 
is  repeated  in  many  other  places  of  his  work ;  in  his 
22d  chapter,  he  calls  upon  Berengarius  to  "  question 
the  Latins,  to  interrogate  the  Greeks,  the  Arme- 
nians, and  generally  all  the  Christians  of  every 
country,  and  they  will  all  with  one  voice  profess  this 
faith."} 

Guitmundus,  archbishop  of  Aversa,  another  cotem- 
porary  author,  and  who  was  probably  present  at  the 
council  of  Rome,  an.  1059,  reproaches  the  followers 
of  Berengarius  with  holding  a  doctrine  "  that  was 
not  received  so  much  as  in  one  borough,  or  even  one 
village."^ 

In  fine,  Berengarius  himself  was  so  much  convinced 
of  the  universal  belief  being  contrary  to  his  new  tenet, 
that  he  pretended,  according  to  Lanfrank,  "  that  the 
church  had  perished  through  the  ignorance  of  those 
who  understood  not  her  mysteries,  and  that  she  sub- 
sisted only  in  himself  and  his  followers."|| 

*  Contra  orbem  sentire  cacpisti — contra  Catholicam  veritatem  ;  &  contra 
omnium  ecclesiarum  opinionem  scriptum  postea  condidisti.  Lanl'r.  c.  1.  apud, 
auct.  Perp.  de  lafoi. 

t  Ibid.  $  Ibid. 

i  Neque  enim  pis  ulla  civitatula,  vel  etiam  una  villula  concessit,     fbid. 

11  Ibid. 

1%  11 


82 


With  this,  and  much  more  similar  evidence  before 
me  of  the  sense  of  the  church  concerning  transubstan- 
tiation,  at  the  rise  of  Berengarius's  heresy,  about  the 
year  1038,1  may  without  rashness  conclude,  that  the 
Chaplain  was  equally  mistaken  in  saying  that  it  only 
became  an  article  of  our  faith  in  the  year  1215  ;  and 
in  asserting,  as  we  have  before  seen,  that  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ's  carnal  presence  in  the  Eucharist  was 
regarded  as  matter  of  opinion  till  the  council  of  Rome, 
under  pope  Nicholas,  in  the  year  1059  or  1060. 

The  testimonies  I  have  alleged  are  so  full  and  de- 
cisive, that  the  most  learned  Protestant  writers  have 
admitted,  reluctantly,  indeed,  but  still  they  have 
admitted,  that  the  Catholic  doctrine  had  full  posses- 
sion of  men's  minds,  when  Berengarius  first  began  to 
dogmatize.  They  assign  its  origin,  increase,  and  full 
establishment  to  the  period  between  the  publication 
of  Paschasius's  writings,  and  the  era  of  Berengarius 
above  mentioned.  This  period  they  represent  as  the 
reign  of  darkness  and  absurdity.  The  Chaplain,  with- 
out adopting  their  common  opinion  of  the  early  pre- 
valence of  our  tenets,  has  however  caught  the  infec- 
tion, and  with  wonderful  sensibility  laments  the  woful 
degradation  of  reason,  and  the  superstition  and  igno- 
rance of  the  age.  According  to  most  of  these  authors, 
it  was  during  this  lamentable  state  of  religion,  virtue, 
and  learning,  that  our  doctrine  crept  into  men's  minds; 
that  it  operated  a  total  change  in  their  faith ;  that 
parents,  who  had  heard  another  lesson  all  their  life- 
time, trained  their  offspring  to  the  belief  of  the  real 
presence,  and  transubstantiation  ;  that  the  pastors  of 
the  churches  did  the  same  with  their  parishioners ; 
that  the  faithful,  instead  of  believing,  as  before!  that 


83 

they  received  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  figuratively,  or 
spiritually,  now  changed  their  creed,  and  admitted 
the  tenet  of  the  real  presence  so  universally,  that  Be- 
rengarius  could  not,  in  the  whole  world,  find  so  much 
as  one  pitiful  town,  or  a  single  village,  to  give  counte- 
nance to  his  doctrine.  What  completes  the  wonder, 
is,  that  all  this  happened  without  any  commotion  or 
opposition.  No  council  was  called  to  withstand  the 
growing  evil;  not  one  bishop  througho^  Msten- 
dom  raised  his  voice  against  it.  At  a«|  Ker  times. 
the  least  innovation,  the  slightest  departure^piWhe  re- 
ceived tenets,  occasioned  disputes  and  contests;  every 
heresy,  however  obscure  or  speculative,  was  combat- 
ed at  its  first  appearance  ;  but  this  doctrine  of  the 
real  presence,  which  involved  in  its  nature  a  point  of 
daily  practice,  as  well  as  of  faith  ;  which  proposed  to 
Christians,  as  an  object  of  inward  and  outward  adora- 
tion, that  which  in  their  former  estimation  it  was  idol- 
atrous to  adore  ;  this  doctrine  gently  insinuated  itself 
without  noise  or  disturbance  into  the  minds  of  all 
Christians,  during  that  long  sleep  into  which  igno- 
rance had  lulled  them ;  it  operated  this  wonderful 
revolution  so  silently,  that  no  historian  either  per- 
ceived it  in  himself  or  others,  to  transmit  us  an  account 
of  it.  Can  men,  who  will  believe  this,  find  any  mys- 
tery in  religion,  even  transubstantiation  itself,  too 
hard  for  their  digestion  ? 

But  we  are  not  yet  come  to  all  the  wonders  of  this 
most  extraordinary  phenomenon.  The  doctrine  now 
held  by  the  Catholic  church  was,  at  the  rise  of  Beren- 
garius's  error,  and  so  continues  to  this  day,  the  doc- 
trine of  all  the  eastern  and  southern  Christian 
churches,  the  Greek,  the  Armenian,  the  Cophtiek,  the 


84 

Abyssinian,  &c. ;  so  truly  did  Lanfrank,  as  above  cited, 
refer  to  them  as  witnesses  of  the  universal  belief. 
Many  of  those  Christians,  as  the  Nestorians,  Euty- 
chians,  &c.  were  separated  from  the  church  of  Rome 
near  four  hundred  years  before  Paschasius  wrote  on 
the  Eucharist.  Within  a  few  years  after  his  writing 
his  letter  to  Frudegardus,  the  Greek  schism  was  in  a 
great  degree  begun  by  Photius,  and  rent  asunder  the 
easternjOBjl  western  churches,  and  bred  between 
them,  especially  in  the  former,  an  animosity  which 
they  WTll  with  difficulty  conceive,  who  are  unacquaint- 
ed with  the  ardent  spirits  of  the  Greeks.  It  is  there- 
fore incredible,  I  had  almost  said  impossible,  consi- 
dering the  nature  of  the  human  mind,  that  in  this  state 
of  resentment,  the  oriental  churches  should  not  only 
adopt  the  innovations  of  the  Latins,  but  adopt  them 
without  reproach  or  opposition,  of  which  not  the 
slightest  testimony  is  come  down  to  us  ;  and  that  these 
pretended  innovations  should  be  received  and  incor- 
porated into  their  religion  not  only  by  the  abettors  of 
Photius's  schism,  but  likewise  by  the  Nestorians, 
Eutychians,  &c,  who  had  been  so  long  separated 
from  the  communion  both  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  and 
the  patriarch  of  Constantinople. 

Obstinacy,  or  ignorance,  alone  can  deny,  that  our 
doctrine  concerning  the  Eucharist  agrees  with  that  of 
all  the  churches  I  have  mentioned.  No  point  of  his- 
tory can  be  supported  with  fuller  evidence  than  this 
now  is,  that  the  real  presence  and  transubstantiation 
are  the  invariable  tenets  of  the  eastern  Christians; 
and  no  other  commencement  of  this  general  persua- 
sion can  be  assigned,  with  the  smallest  show  of  proba- 


85 


bifity,  than  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  reli- 


gion itself. 


From  all  that  has  been  said,  our  inference  is  clear 
and  conclusive.  The  doctrine  of  the  real  presence 
and  transubstantiation,were  the  established  doctrines 
of  the  church,  and  not  merely  matters  of  opinion,  long 
before  the  eras  assigned  by  the  Chaplain,  that  is,  be- 
fore the  years  1060  and  1215.  They  were  univer- 
sally taught  previously  to  the  Greek  schism,  which 
may  be  said  to  have  begun  an.  857,  by  Pnotius's  in- 
trusion into  the  see  of  Constantinople,  and  even  before 
the  Nestorian  and  Eutychian  heresies,  the  latter  of 
which  was  condemned  in  the  council  of  Chalcedon, 
an.  454;  and  the  former  in  that  of  Ephesus,  an.  434. 
But  if  they  were  the  general  doctrines  throughout  the 
western  and  eastern  churches  at  so  early  a  period, 
what  foundation  can  there  be  for  assigning  their  com- 
mencement to  any  other  era,  than  that  of  Christianity 
itself? 

It  imports,  then,  little  to  the  present  subject,  whe- 
ther in  the  interval  between  Paschasius  and  Berenga- 
rius,  a  gloom  of  dark  and  universal  ignorance  over- 
spread the  face  of  the  Christian  world  ;  and  whether 
the  bishops  were  unable  to  write  their  names  ;*  for 
enough  has  been  said,  though  much  more  remains  un- 
said, to  prove  to  every  dispassionate  man,  that  the 
obnoxious  tenets  did  not  steal  upon  men's  minds  dur- 
ing this  fatal  interval.  If  it  were  at  all  material  to 
refute  the  exaggerated  imputations  of  supineness  and 
ignorance,  it  would  be  no  difficult  matter,  for  the  pe- 
riod so  outrageously  abused  was  not  so  fatal  to   the 

*  Chaplain's  letter,  p.  31, 


86 

cultivation  of  letters  as  is  represented ;  and  if,  through 
the  tyranny  of  turbulent  barons,  and  violence  of  con- 
tending factions,  some  few  prelates  incapable  of  wri- 
ting their  names,  perhaps  not  six  in  all  Christendom, 
were  imposed  upon  different  churches,  there  were 
many  others,  pious  and  well  informed,  who  kept  con- 
stant watch  over  the  flocks  committed  to  their  charge. 
Whoever  will  read  the  acts  of  the  council  of  Rheims, 
held  within  this  period,  viz.  an.  992,  will  be  satisfied 
that  the  bishops,  who  composed  it,  were  perfectly  ac- 
quainted with  ecclesiastical  discipline  and  sacred  an- 
tiquity ;  and  animated  with  a  becoming  zeal  for  the 
preservation  of  sound  morals  among  the  clergy.  Ba- 
ronius  and  Sigonius  had  their  eyes  principally  turned 
on  Italy,  their  own  country,  and  especially  on  Rome, 
when  they  wrote  so  unfavourably  of  the  age ;  and 
there  indeed  contending  factions  imposed  some  pon- 
tiffs on  the  chair  of  St.  Peter,  who  disgraced  their 
station  by  the  corruption  of  their  manners.  But 
France,  England,  and  Germany,  and  even  some 
parts  of  Italy,  were  blessed  with  bishops  of  extraordi- 
nary virtue  and  knowledge,  and  with  princes,  who 
encouraged  learning,  and  endowed  academies  of  sci- 
ence, in  which,  if  the  true  taste  of  literature  did  not 
yet  flourish,  at  least  the  study  of  religion,  and  zeal  for 
improvement,  did  ;  as  is  attested  of  the  schools  erected 
at  Paris,  Arras,  Cambrai,  Liege,  &c.# 

The  Chaplain  (P.  19,  20.)  cites  some  Catholic  di- 
vines, who  acknowledge  that  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation  is  not  to  be  found  in  scripture.  It  has  been 
already  observed,  that  nothing  conclusive  can  be  in- 

*  Histoire  Lilteraire  de  Fr.  t.  6. 


87 

ferred  from  this,  even  supposing  these  divines  in  the 
right,  and  that  they  are  fairly  cited.  But  what  if 
their  meaning  be  only  this,  that  in  scripture  there  is 
no  express  declaration  of  the  bread  and  wine  being 
changed  into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  ?  Might 
they  not  say  this,  and  still  believe  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  real  presence  was  so  expressed  in  holy  writ,  as 
necessarily  to  infer  the  change,  which  we  call  tran- 
substantiation?  For  I  will  venture  to  say,  though  I 
have  never  looked  into  some  of  these  divines,  that 
there  is  not  one  of  them,  who  does  not  teach  that  the 
words,  This  is  my  body,  import  Christ's  real,  corpo- 
real, and  substantial  presence  in  the  Eucharist.  Ac- 
cordingly, Scotus  says  only,  that  there  is  no  text  of 
scripture  so  explicit,  as  evidently  to  compel  our  assent  to 
transubstantiation.* 

Melchior  Cano's  elegant  work  I  have  heretofore 
read  with  great  pleasure ;  and  I  wish  that  the  Chap- 
lain had  transcribed  the  whole  passage  referred 
to,  that  we  might  fairly  judge  of  his  meaning;  for  I 
own,  that  I  grievously  suspect  Cano  of  saying,  that 
transubstantiation  is  certainly  implied,  as  a  necessary 
consequence  of  scripture  doctrine,  if  not  expressly  de- 
livered in  it ;  and  that  the  words  of  the  institution  of 
the  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist  would  not  be  true,  if 
they  did  not  import  a  change  of  the  bread  and  wine 
into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 

Alphonsus  de  Castro  is  very  orthodox,  and  has  the 
character  of  being  a  divine  of  some  credit ;  but  as  to 
his  being  a  mighty  name  in  scholastic  theology,  I  never 
before  heard  it ;  and  I  am  sure,  no  divine  can  be  enti- 

*  Ut  evidenler  cogat  transubstantiationem  admittere.  Sent,  ajipa  Bell.  t.  ". 
de  Euch.  c.  23. 


88 

tied  to  that  character,  who  gravely  says,  that  in  old  au-* 
thors  there  is  seldom  any  mention  made  of  the  transubstan- 
tiation  of  the  bread  into  the  body  of  Christ ;  for  so  the 
Chaplain  cites  him.  (P.  20.)  How  little  conversant 
with  old  authors  he  must  be,  who  gravely  advances 
such  a  proposition,  will  plainly  appear  from  Bellar- 
mine,  Du  Perron,  Tournely,  &c.  I  shall  presently 
have  occasion  to  recite  some  passages  from  old  au- 
thors ;  but  shall  do  it  with  a  sparing  hand,  not  forget- 
ting that  the  purport  of  this  address  is  not  to  estab- 
lish, but  to  vindicate  our  doctrine  from  the  attack 
made  against  it. 

After  exhausting  his  authorities  against  transub- 
stantiation,  the  Chaplain  begs  leave  to  mention  two 
negative  arguments,  ivhich  seem  to  prove  to  a  demonstration, 
that  it  was  unknown  to  the  ancient  church*  How  capa- 
ble this  is  of  demonstration,  you  may  judge  from  what 
you  have  already  heard.  Was  it  unknown  to  the  an- 
cient church,  when  Cyril,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  wrote 
thus  about  the  year  350  ?  "  Jesus  Christ,  in  Cana 
of  Galilee,  by  his  will  only,  changed  water  into  wine, 
which  has  some  affinity  with  blood  ;  and  can  we  not 
believe  him,  that  he  changes  the  wine  into  his  oicn  blood? 
Let  your  soul  rejoice  at  it,  as  a  thing  most  certain, 
that  the  bread,  which  appears  to  our  eyes,  is  not  bread, 
though  our  taste  do  judge  it  to  be  so,  but  that  it  is  the 
body  of  Christ ;  and  that  the  wine,  which  appears  to 
our  eyes,  is  not  wine,  though  our  sense  of  taste  take  it  for 
wine,  but  that  it  is  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ."t 

Was  transubstantiation  unknown,  when,  in  the  same 
century,  Gaudentius,  bishop  of  Brescia,  thus  express- 

*  r.  24,  note.  f  Cyril.  Hier.  Catecb.  Myst.  4. 


89 

ed  himself:  "  The  Creator,  and  Lord  of  beings,  who 
produces  bread  from  the  earth,  from  bread  makes  his 
own  body,  because  he  can  do  it,  and  has  promised  it ; 
and  he,  that  out  of  water  made  wine,  out  of  wine 
makes  his  own  blood."*  It  is,  I  hope,  needless  to  add 
to  these,  the  testimonies  of  almost  every  Christian  fa- 
ther; and  I  think  the  Chaplain  might  contend,  with 
equal  appearance  of  truth,  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
necessity  of  baptism  ivas  unknown  to  the  ancient 
church,  as  that  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist 
was. 

We  are  now  prepared,  to  examine  his  negative  argu- 
ments.    The  first  is,  that  if  the  ancient  church  former- 
ly adored  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  as  we  now  do,  Ca- 
tholics would,  in  arguing  against  Arians,  have  insist- 
ed on  that  adoration  as  a  proof  of  Christ's  divinity. 
(P.  24.)     Such  is  his  first  demonstration  ;   but  does  it 
not   equally    prove,    that  the   ancient  church   never 
adored  Christ  at  all,  in  or  out  of  the  Eucharist  ?    For 
pray,    would   it   not   be  equally  conclusive   against 
Arians,  and  in  favour  of  Christ's  divinity,  to  have   al- 
leged the  ancient  custom  of  adoring  him  out  of  the 
sacrament,  for  instance,  as  he  is  seated  in  Heaven  on 
the  right  hand  of  his   Father  ?    Why  therefore  was 
this  argument  not  insisted  on  by  the  ancient  fathers  ? 
for  a  very  obvious  reason  ;  because  the  Arians,  at  the 
very  time  that  they  fell  into  heresy  to  avoid  the  pre- 
tended contradictions  in  the  doctrine  of  the   trinity, 
swallowed  other  real  ones  ;  and,  as  ecclesiastical  his- 
torians observe,  made  no  difficulty  to  acknowledge, 
that  Christ  was  a  divine  person,  true  God  of  true  GW,f 

*  Gauden.  Brix.  Serm.  2. 

t  Porrate?'  Hist,  Eccl.  J.  2.  c.  20. 

12 


90 

eternal,  the  sdme  God  with  the  Father,  and  possessing  the 
same  divine  pre-eminence  or  dignity  ;*  and  therefore  an 
object  of  divine  worship.  In  a  word,  they  seemingly 
admitted  every  thing  but  the  term  consubsiantial. 
Adoration  they  did  not  refuse  :  and  the  Catholics,  in- 
stead of  having  cause  to  reproach  them  with  neglect- 
ing it,  charged  them,  on  the  contrary,  with  introducing 
a  plurality  of  Gods,  by  paying  divine  honours  to  him. 
to  whom,  consistently  with  their  principles,  they  could 
not  be  due.f 

Before  I  proceed  to  the  Chaplain's  second  argu- 
ment, amounting  likewise  to  demonstration,  I  must  beg 
leave  to  detain  your  attention  a  little  while  longer  on 
the  first.  This  is  his  reasoning  :  the  Catholics,  in 
their  dispute  with  the  Arians,  did  not  object  against 
the  latter,  the  supreme  adoration  paid  to  Christ  in 
the  blessed  Eucharist ;  therefore  no  such  adoration 
was  paid  him  ;  but  that  adoration  would  not  have 
been  withheld,  if  the  Catholics  had  indeed  believed 
Christ's  real  presence  in  the  Eucharist;  therefore, 
since  it  was  withheld,  they  did  not  believe  in  it.  You 
have  already  heard  a  very  satisfactory  reason,  why 
Catholics  did  not  object  against  the  Arians,  as  the 
Chaplain  thinks  they  would  ;  to  that  then  I  shall  say 
no  more  ;  but  begging  leave,  for  once,  to  quit  my  de- 
fensive plan,  I  shall  build  one  argument  in  favour  of 
our  doctrine  upon  the  foundation  laid  by  the  Chap- 
lain. According  to  him,  adoration  of  Christ  in  the 
Eucharist,  imports  a  belief  of  his  real  presence  ;  but 
primitive  Christians  adored  Christ  in  the  Eucharist; 
they  therefore  believed  his  real  presence.     The  se~ 

*  Ibid,  c  19.  prope  finem. 

t  Soc.  Hist.  Eccl.  I.  1.  c.  23.  edit.  VaL 


91 

*:ond,  or  minor  proposition,  which  is  the  only  disputa- 
ble one,  can  be  proved  by  the  clearest  evidence  of 
primitive  Christians  themselves.  I  shall  omit  relating 
passages  to  this  point  out  of  Ambrose,  the  holy  bish- 
op of  Milan,*  Chrysostom,t  Gregory  Nazianzen,  &c, 
that  I  may  come  immediately  to  an  authority  still 
more  authentic,  the  public  liturgy  of  the  church  of 
Constantinople,  which  commonly  goes  under  the  name 
Gf  Chrysostom,  and  was  probably  composed,  and  cer- 
tainly used  by  him.  In  this  liturgy,  not  only  the  ex- 
ternal acts  of  adoration,  expressed  by  incense,  bend- 
ing and  prostrating  the  body,  &c.  are  enjoined,  but 
likewise  internal  adoration  is  clearly  signified  by  the 
prayers  addressed  to  Jesus  Christ  in  the  sacrament. 
44  Lord  Jesus,"  is  the  priest  enjoined  to  say,  44  look 
down  from  thy  holy  habitation,  and  from  the  throne  of 
thy  glory,  come  to  sanctify  us,  thou  who  art  seated  in 
Heaven  with  thy  Father,  and  who  art  here  present 
with  us  in  an  invisible  manner.  Deign  with  thy  pow- 
erful hand  to  grant  us  thy  pure  and  unsullied  body ; 
and  through  us  to  all  the  people."  Then  adds  the 
liturgy,  "  the  priest  and  the  deacon  must  make  their 
adoration."  And  to  show,  that  this  adoration  refers 
to  the  body  of  Christ  upon  the  altar,  we  need  only 
note  the  farther  directions  of  the  liturgy.  The  priest 
taking  up  the  consecrated  bread,  and  bending  his 
head  before  the  altar,  prays  in  this  manner  :  44 1  con- 
fess, that  thou  art  Christ,  the  son  of  the  living  God, 
who  came  into  the  world  to  save  sinners,  &c.  Lord, 
I  am  not  worthy  that  thou  shouldst  enter  into  my 
house  defiled  with  sin  ;  but  as  thou  didst  vouchsafe  to 

*  DeSpir.  san.  lib.  3.  12. 
■*t  Chrys.  horn.  60.  ad  Pop.  Antioch. — and,  de  Sacerd.  lib.  ff. 


92 

enter  the  house  of  Simon  the  Leper,  so  likewise 
vouchsafe  to  enter  my  soul,  full  of  ungovernable  pas- 
sions, as  a  manger,  or  a  house  of  filth  and  death,  co- 
vered all  over  with  the  leprosy  of  sin."  Thus  is 
proved  the  adoration  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  not 
only  by  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  but  by  a  law  of 
ecclesiastical  discipline,  connected  with  daily  and  in- 
violable practice ;  and  making  part  of  the  worship 
rendered  to  Jesus  Christ  agreeably  to  the  public  li- 
turgy;  and  consequently,  the  primitive  belief  of  the 
real  presence  is  fully  established. 

The  Chaplain's  second  negative  argument,  or  de- 
monstration against  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Eu- 
charist is,  that  heathen  writers  would  have  retorted  upon 
Christians,  the  accusation  of  idolatry  in  adoring  a  bit  of 
bread,  in  reserving  their  God  in  gold  and  silver  chalices, 
&c.  (P.  24,  note.)  Violent,  indeed,  must  be  his  pre- 
judices against  the  religion  he  has  renounced,  if  such 
arguments  appear  demonstrations  to  him.  For  how 
little  do  we  know  of  the  disputations  between  Chris- 
tians and  heathens  ?  Some  fragments  of  Celsus  and 
Porphyry,  and  of  the  writings  of  Julian  the  apostate, 
together  with  the  little  that  can  be  collected  from  the 
early  apologies  for  Christianity,  are  almost  all,  that  is 
come  down  to  us  on  this  subject.  The  heathens  may 
have  objected,  as  the  Chaplain  supposes  they  would  ; 
so  may  they  have  found,  in  the  mystery  of  the  Incar- 
nation of  the  Son  of  God,  in  his  nativity,  in  his  cruci- 
fixion, an  apparent  apology  for  their  fables  concern- 
ing their  own  divinities.  They  may  have  grounded 
on  the  Christian  doctrine  of  redemption,  the  same  ar- 
guments as  the  Socinians  now  do ;  and  they  may, 
from  the  example  afforded  them,  have  attempted  to 


93 

justify  their  own  human  sacrifices.  Above  all,  they 
may  have  availed  themselves  of  the  tenet  of  the  Tri- 
nity, to  uphold,  or,  at  least,  explain  away,  the  absurdi- 
ties of  a  plurality  of  Gods.  But,  have  we  any  autho- 
rity for  saying  they  did  so  ?  No  ;  and  except  a  single 
expression  of  the  scoffer  Lucian,  which  seems  to 
glance  at  the  Trinity ;  and  a  passage  of  Tertullian 
and  Athanasius,  implying,  that  some  Jews  and  Pagans 
reproached  Christians  with  admitting  more  Gods  than 
one  ;  antiquity  does  not  furnish  us  with  any  proof  of 
these  arguments  being  used  by  heathen  writers. 
What  wonder  then,  if  they  never  made  the  objection 
proposed  by  the  Chaplain,  especially,  as  of  all  the 
mysteries  of  our  religion,  the  celebration  of  the  Eu- 
charist was  that,  in  which,  during  the  reign  of  perse- 
cution and  idolatry,  the  greatest  privacy  was  observ- 
ed. 

The  truth  is,  the  heathens  despised  the  Christians 
too  much  to  inform  themselves  minutely  of  their  te- 
nets. They  knew  little  of  them,  but  what  appeared 
outwardly  ;  their  aversion  for  idolatry,  and  their  pro- 
fession of  following  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Here  their  inquiries  stopped  ;  and  Tertullian,  in  his 
Apology,  ch.  1.,  upbraids  them  with  neglecting  in  this 
point  alone  to  seek  information. 

To  these  negative  arguments,  the  Chaplain  begs 
leave  to  add,  '4  that  the  fathers  of  the  2d  council  of 
Nice  expressly  confirm  the  opinion,  that  Christ's  body 
in  heaven  is  not  flesh  and  blood  ;  how  therefore  can 
bread  and  wine  be  changed  into  his  body,  if  they  be- 
come flesh  and  blood  ?"  (P.  24,  note.)  For  this 
most  extraordinary  passage,  he  quotes  Labbe's  Collec- 
tion of  the  Councils,  torn.  6.  p.  541.    This  collection! 


94 

know  not  where  to  find  in  America  ;  but  I  aver,  that 
no  such  doctrine  was  delivered  or  entertained  by  the 
fathers  of  that  council ;  and  will  therefore,  without 
fear  of  being  convicted  of  rashness,  undertake  to  say? 
that  the  Chaplain  cannot  support  what  he  has  here 
advanced.  Neither  Cabassutius,  in  his  summary  of  the 
councils,  nor  Fleury,  nor  Natalis  Alexander,  who  re- 
cite the  decrees  and  canons  of  this  council  with  much 
exactness,  say  one  syllable  of  such  a  doctrine  being 
taught  in  it.  As  in  many  other  instances,  so  like- 
wise in  this,  the  Chaplain  has  suffered  himself  to  be 
misled  by  authors,  whom,  I  hope,  he  will  deservedly 
mistrust  for  the  time  to  come.  Their  unfaithfulness 
is  eminently  conspicuous  in  the  present  instance.  In 
the  fifth  session  of  the  council,  some  passages  were 
read  of  a  fabulous  book,  entitled,  The  Travels  of  the 
Apostles.  Amongst  other  fables,  it  was  there  related, 
that  John  the  Evangelist  had  said,  that  Christ  had 
no  true  body ;  that  when  the  Jews  thought  they 
crucified  him,  he  exhibited  only  the  appearance  of  a 
body,  but  was  in  reality  without  any  corporeal  figure. 
But  so  far  was  the  council  from  confirming  this  doc- 
trine, that  they  rejected  it  with  horror.  This  is  the 
account  given  by  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccles.  torn.  9.  b.  44. 
an.  787.  It  would  be  curious  indeed,  if  the  authors, 
whom  the  Chaplain  has  followed,  should  have  mis- 
taken this  fabulous  writing  for  the  acts  of  the  coun- 
cil* 

•  Siace  writing  the  above,  I  have  found,  in  the  Annapolis  library,  Binius's 
Greek  and  Latin  Edition  of  the  Acts  of  the  2d  council  of  Nice  ;  I  have  care- 
fully examined  these  Acts,  but  can  meet  with  nothing  similar  to  the  opinion 
attributed  to  the  council  by  the  Chaplain,  but  the  contrary  doctrine  repeated- 
ly established,  and  t'.ie  error  rejected  with  horror,  which  ascribed  to  Christ 
only  an  apparent  or  phantastical  bedy.  See  Concil.  Gener.  Vol.  V.  Act.  5. 
p.  703,  4,  5, 6. 


95 

Nothing,  I  think,  now  remains  unnoticed  of  all  he 
has  said  against   our  doctrine   of  the   Eucharist,  ex- 
cepting the   collection  of  supposed   absurdities   and 
contradictions,*with  which,  in  the  same  page,  (24.,)  he 
charges  transubstantiation.      In  this,  he  uses  a  mode 
of  reasoning  not  very  liberal,  and  yet  not  unpractised 
by  many  other  writers  against  us.     The  objected  ab- 
surdities and  contradictions,  whether  real   or  imagi- 
nary,   result    more  immediately  from    Christ's    real 
presence  in  the  Eucharist,  than  from  transubstantia- 
tion ;   but  to  impute  them  to  that  doctrine,  would  not 
be  quite  so   inoffensive.       Some  regards   are  due  to 
Protestant  Lutheran  brethren,  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  church,  who  admit  the  real  pre- 
sence in  their  catechisms    at  least,   and  according  to 
their  earliest  writers.     But  as  to  the  Catholic  tenets, 
too  much  cannot  be  said  to  render  them  an  object  of 
ridicule  and  detestation.     If  transubstantiation  be  ad- 
mitted, says  the  Chaplain,  (p.  24.,)  the  true  God  may  be 
shut    up   in  boxes,  or   devoured   corporally   by  vermin. 
Would  to  God  it  were  possible,   in   answering   such 
objections,  (which  indeed  I  never  should  have  suspect- 
ed the  Chaplain  capable  of  drawing  from  the  foulest 
dregs  of  controversy,)  to  keep  up  your  respect  for  this 
great  mystery  of  our  religion,  and  adorable  pledge  of 
divine  goodness  towards  mankind  !  How  can  he  give  us 
his  flesh  to  cat?    (John  vi.)  was  the  Jewish  question; 
and  many  hearing  it,  said,  this  saying  is  hard,  and  who 
can  hear  it  ? 

So  likewise  the  Marcionites,  and  other  enemies  of 
the  Incarnation,  contended,  that  to  be  enclosed  in  a 
womb,  and  to  be  laid  in  a  manger,  was  unworthy  of 
the  Divine  Majesty.     The.  Pagans  and  Jews  ridiculed 


96 

the  credulity  of  Christians  in  believing  in  a  man  cruci- 
fied between  two  thieves;  but  the  church  despised 
their  mockeries,  being  taught  by  the  great  apostle, 
that  the  mystery  of  the  cross  was  indeed  a  stumbling 
block  to  the  Jews,  and  to  the  Greeks  foolishness  ;  but  to 
those  who  are  called — the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of 
God.*  The  divinity  of  Christ  could  not  be  injured 
by  his  mortal  sufferings ;  and  from  them,  great  glory 
came  to  him,  and  utility  to  men.  The  same  answer 
we  may  give  to  our  opponents,  when  they  compel  us 
to  take  notice  of  objections  so  unworthy  of  the  great- 
ness and  sanctity  of  the  subject  under  consideration. 
But  if  this  will  not  satisfy  them,  I  would  beg  leave  to 
ask  them,  whether  they  do  not  believe  that  the  infant 
Jesus  was  confined  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
and  wrapped  in  swaddling  clothes  ?  Do  they  not 
believe  that  he  was,  like  other  children,  liable  to  be 
hurt,  for  instance,  by  the  application  of  fire,  or  the 
stings  of  insects  ?  If  then  he  could  suffer  these  things 
in  his  own  natural  body,  and  be  liable  to  be  hurt  by 
them;  why  may  he  not  render  himself  subject,  in  ap- 
pearance, to  the  same  accidents,  when  he  is  under  the 
covering  of  bread  and  wine,  and  incapable  of  being 
hurt  thereby  ? 

I  have  already  taken  some  notice  of  the  objection, 
so  often  repeated,f  and  so  often  refuted,  of  transub- 
stantiation  contradicting  our  senses  and  our  understand- 
ing. Ought  we  to  trust  our  senses  more  than  God 
himself?  When  Joshua,  who  took  the  angel  for  a 
man,  asked  him,  Art  thou  for  us,  or  for  our  adversaries, 
and  was  told,  he  was  not  a  man,  but  a  captain  of  the 

*  1  Cor.  i.  +  Ch.  Let.  p.  24. 


97 

heavenly  host,  he  fell  on  his  face,  and  worshipped,  and 
said,  What  says  my  Lord  unto  his  servant?  (Joshua  v. 
14.;)  that  is,  he  believed  him  rather  than  his  senses; 
for  to  all  his  senses  he  appeared  a  man ;  but  revela- 
tion informed  him,  that  what  he  saw  was  an  angel. 
In  like  manner,  if  God  has  revealed  to  us,  that  under 
the  appearances  of  bread  and  wine,  is  contained  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ;  are  we  not  to  believe  him 
rather  than  those  appearances?  The  evidence  for 
the  revelation,  may  be  tried  by  all  the  rules  of  criti- 
cism ;  but  when  the  mind  is  once  convinced  of  its  ex- 
istence, it  must  then  submit,  notwithstanding  all 
seeming  contradiction,  or  opposition  of  our  senses. 
;i  Let  us  always  believe  God,"  says  St.  Chrysostom, 
speaking  of  the  Eucharist,  "  and  not  contradict  him, 
though  that  which  he  says,  seems  to  contradict  our  thoughts 
and  our  eyes.  For  his  words  cannot  deceive  us;  but 
our  sense  may  be  easily  deceived.  Since,  therefore,  he 
9ays,  This  is  my  body,  let  us  be  fully  persuaded  of  it. 
How  many  say  now,  oh !  that  I  could  see  him  in  his 
own  shape  !  or  his  clothes  !  or  any  thing  about  him  ! 
Believe  me,  you  see  him;  you  touch  him;  you  eat 
him.  You  would  be  content  to  see  his  clothes;  and 
he  lets  you  not  only  see  him,  but  also  touch  him, 
and  eat  him,  and  receive  him  within  you.*"*  From 
this  geniviie  quotation- you  may  see  what  St.  Chrysos- 
tom, that  enlightened  doctor  of  antiquity,  thought  both 
of  the  argument  drawn  from  a  supposed  contradiction 
of  our  senses  and  understanding,  and  of  the  real  pre- 
sence and  transubstantiation. 

As  the  Chaplain  has  added  to  his  reasoning  against 


Chrys.  hom.  82.  (al.  83.)  in  Matt. 
13 


98 

our  belief,  none  of  those  innumerable  arguments,  which 
evince  the  meaning  of  Christ's  words,  This  is  my  body, 
to  he  figurative,  (p.  25.,)  I  likewise  shall  gladly  waive 
the  controversy;  only  remarking,  that  he  is  neither 
terrified  by  the  anathemas  of  Luther  against  the  de- 
fenders of  a  figurative  sense,  whom  he  calls  blas- 
phemers, a  damned  sect,  liars,  bread-eaters,  wine-guz- 
zlers* &c,  nor  by  the  severity  of  Dr.  Cosin,  bishop  of 
Durham,  in  the  beginning  of  his  History  of  Transub- 
stantiation,  where,  speaking  of  the  words  of  the  insti- 
tution of  the  sacrament,  he  says ;  if  any  one  make  a 
bare  figure  of  them,  we  cannot  and  ought  not  either  excuse 
or  suffer  him  in  our  churches. 

Another  of  our  tenets,  which  the  Chaplain  has  se- 
lected as  unsupported  by  scripture  and  antiquity,  par- 
ticularly in  the  Greek  church,  is,  the  belief  of  purga- 
tory. But  before  he  proceeded  to  impugn,  he  ought 
to  have  stated  it ;  which  not  having  done,  the  defi- 
ciency shall  now  be  supplied.  All,  therefore,  which 
the  church  requires  to  be  believed  on  this  subject,  is 
contained  in  the  decree  of  the  council  of  Trent,  which 
defines,  that  there  is  a  purgatory,  or  middle  state,  and 
that  the  souls  therein  detained,  are  relieved  by  the  suffra- 
ges of  the  faithful,  especially  by  the  agreeable  sacrifice  of 
the  altar.^  Concerning  the  nature  or  extent  of  their 
sufferings,  whether  by  fire  or  otherwise,  the  place  of 
punishment,  its  duration,  &c,  we  are  not  confined  to 
any  particular  opinion.  Noav,  is  it  true,  that  this 
doctrine  has  no  foundation  in  scripture  and  antiqui- 
ty ?  The  books  of  Maccabees,  which  so  decidedly  es- 

*  Blasphemes  in  Deum,  damnatam  sectam,  mendaces  homines,  panivoros, 
vini-^i!>ones.     Lutli.  inparva  Conf. 
1  Cone.  Trid.  sess.  25. 


99 

tablish  it,  must  not  be  admitted  of  sufficient  authority, 
because  they  were  not  acknowledged  for  canonical  scrip- 
tures by  St.  Hierom,  Rufinus,  Epiphanius,  jQthanasius, 
Gregory,  and  many  other  ancient  and  eminent  fathers. 
(Ch.  Let.  p.  21.)  If  it  be  a  sufficient  reason  for  re- 
jecting the  books  of  Maccabees,  that  some  early  fa- 
thers doubted  of  their  canonical  authority,  though 
afterwards,  on  a  full  investigation,  they  were  received 
by  the  whole  church,  I  wish  to  know,  how  Protestants 
came  generally  to  admit  the  authority  of  the  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews,  the  2d  of  Peter  and  of  James,  the 
Revelation  of  John  and  others  ;  for  of  all  these,  as 
well  as  of  the  books  of  Maccabees,  doubts  were  some 
time  entertained,  and  the  fathers  held  different  opi- 
nions concerning  them.  But  I  expect  no  satisfactory 
account  of  this  matter ;  and  am  well  convinced,  that 
the  prevailing  reason,  which  moved  the  compilers  of 
the  English  Bible  to  reject  the  one,  and  receive  the 
other,  was,  the  support  which  they  observed  the  Ca- 
tholic doctrine  of  purgatory,  would  derive  from  the 
book  of  Maccabees.*  But,  though  it  were  destitute  of 
this,  there  are  not  wanting  other  passages  of  scrip- 
ture, to  confirm  the  same,  as  the  Chaplain  may  find 
in  our  divines,  though  he  so  positively  says  the  con- 
trary, and  particularly  in  the  Catholic  Scripturist,  with 
whom  he  ought  not  to  be  unacquainted. 

*  Neither  Jerome  nor  Gregory  reject  these  books.  The  former  says,  they 
are  not  in  the  Hebrew  canon,  (formed  by  Esdras,  before  they  were  written,) 
nor  universally  received.  But  he  himself  held  them  to  be  of  divine  inspiration. 
Com.  in  c.  xxiii.  Isaire — in  c.  vii.  &  ix.  Eccl. — in  c.  viii.  Daniel.  And  Grego- 
ry, who  was  posterior  to  the  council  of  Carthage,  which  declared  their  ca- 
nonical authority,  can  only  mean,  that  they  had  not  been  so  received  byjal!  thf. 
churches.  As  to  Athanasius,  if  the  Chaplain  ground  his  assertion,  as  I  sus- 
pect, on  a  writing  entitled  Synopsis,  and  bearing  his  name,  that  work  is  re- 
jected by  all  the  critics,  as  falsely  imputed  to  him 


100 

As  to  the  doctrine  of  antiquity  concerning  purgato- 
ry, and  particularly  of  the  Greek  church,  we  shall 
meet  with  little  difficulty.  No  article  of  the  Chris- 
tian belief  has  stronger  evidence  from  the  testimony 
of  the  early  fathers ;  they  prove  incontestably  the 
practice  of  praying  for  the  dead  ;  they  assert,  that  by 
the  prayers  of  the  faithful,  in  this  life,  comfort  and 
relief  is  obtained  for  those  who  are  departed  out  of 
it ;  which  is  establishing  as  much  of  the  doctrine  of 
purgatory,  as  we  are  obliged  to  believe.  St.  Epipha- 
nius,  a  bishop  of  the  eastern  church,  ranks  Aerius 
amongst  the  founders  of  heretics,  for  teaching,  that 
prayers  and  alms  are  unavailing  to  the  dead  ;*  and 
Augustin  confirms  the  same,  adding,  that  his  heresy 
was  condemned  by  the  universal  church,t  Greeks 
therefore  as  well  as  others.  Cyril,  bishop  of  Jerusa- 
lem, another  Greek  father,  expounding  the  liturgy  in 
a  catechistical  discourse,  says,  "  we  remember  those 
who  are  deceased,  first  the  patriarchs,  apostles,  and 
martyrs,  that  God  would  receive  our  supplications 
through  their  prayers  and  intercession.  Then  we 
pray  for  our  fathers  and  bishops,  and  in  general  all 
amongst  us,  who  are  departed  out  of  this  life,  believing 
that  this  will  be  the  greatest  relief  to  their  souls,  for 
whom  it  is  made,  whilst  the  holy  and  tremendous  vic- 
tim lies  present."^  If  this  address  should  chance  to 
be  seen  by  any  one,  who  has  access  to  the  works  of 
this  holy  father,  I  would  entreat  him  to  read  the  con- 
tinuation of  this  passage,  and  see  the  perfect  agree- 
ment of  our  doctrine  with  that  of  the  Greek  church 


*  Epiph.  Hser.  75,  alias  76. 

t  Aug.  de  Ha?resibus — Hasr.  53. 

t  Cyril.  Hier.  Catec.  Myst.  19.  n.  9.  edit.  Bened.  alias  cat.  5. 


101 

in  St.  Cyril's  time.  The  enlightened  Greek  doctor,  St. 
Chrysostom,  is  equally  decisive.  "  It  is  not  in  vain," 
says  he,  "  that  in  the  divine  mysteries  we  remember 
the  dead,  appearing  in  their  behalf,  praying  the  Lamb, 
who  takes  away  the  sins  of  the  world,  that  comfort 
may  thence  be  derived  to  them — Let  us  pray  for 
them,  who  have  slept  in  Christ ;  let  us  not  fail  to  suc- 
cour the  departed  ;  for  the  common  expiation  of  the 
world  is  offered."*  Here  is  surely  evidence  enough 
to  prove  the  antiquity  of  our  doctrine,  and  its  entire 
conformity  with  that  of  the  Greek  church.  I  quote 
no  Latin  fathers,  as  the  Chaplain  appears  to  lay  par- 
ticular stress  on  the  Greek ;  otherwise  it  were  easy 
to  produce  the  most  unequivocal  evidence,  of  their 
perfect  agreement  with  those  just  cited.  The  objec- 
tion from  the  venerable  bishop  Fisher,  that  to  this 
very  day  purgatory  is  not  believed  by  the  Greeks,  &c,  is 
either  a  mistake  in  him,  or,  what  I  much  more  incline 
to  believe,  he  meant  only  to  say,  that  the  Greeks  do 
not  believe  in  a  purgatory  of  fire,  contrary  to  a  com- 
mon, though  not  a  dogmatical  opinion  of  the  western 
church. 

The  Chaplain  proceeds  (p.  30.)  to  tell  us,  that  om 
present  doctrine  of  the  divine  institution  and  necessity 
of  confession,  was  not  always  a  settled  point  in  our 
church.  What  if  it  were  not?  what  harm  would  en- 
sue, if  for  some  ages  this  matter  remained  without: 
minute  investigation,  and  the  faithful  contented  them- 
selves with  humble  and  penitential  confession  of  their 
sins,  not  inquiring,  whether  the  practice  was  derived 
frern   divine  or  apostolical  institution  ?    Must   we,   for 

*  Chrys,  in  i.  ad  Cor.  hom.  41 — alias  51. 


102 

this  reason,  refuse  to  believe  the  church,  when,  upon 
full  inquiry  and  examination  of  the  tradition  preserv- 
ed in  all  the  churches,  she  defines,  that  confession  is 
an  obligation  imposed  on  us  by  divine  authority  ? 
This  would  lead  us  back  again  into  the  question  of 
infallibility.  But  let  us  hear  the  Chaplain's  reasons. 
The  learned  Alcuin,  says  he,  during  the  ninth  century, 
tells  us  expressly,  that  some  said  it  was  sufficient  to  confess 
our  sins  to  God  alone.  Were  the  persons  here  men- 
tioned Catholics  or  not  ?  Does  it  appear,  that  their 
opinion  had  any  effect  on  the  public  practice,  so  that 
it  might  alarm  J;he  vigilance  of  the  pastors  of  the 
church  ?  Does  he  speak  generally  of  all  sins  ?  Does 
he  not  refer  to  situations  and  cases  of  necessity,  in 
which  confession  cannot  be  made  but  to  God  alone  ? 
Till  these,  and  several  other  things  relating  to  this 
passage,  are  stated  more  fully,  it  is  impossible  to  de- 
termine Alcuin's  meaning.  The  same'  must  be 
observed  of  the  passage  from  the  manuscript  peniten- 
tial of  Theodore,  the  genuineness  of  which,  I  much 
doubt;  for  I  understand  that  Wilkins,  the  collector 
and  editor  of  the  British  Councils,  long  since  Usher's 
time,  has  not  published  it;  and  surely  he  would  not 
have  omitted  so  valuable  a  discovery  ;  and  moreover, 
because  I  find  no  mention  of  this  passage,  in  a  compre- 
hensive abridgment  of  Theodore's  Penitential,  which 
now  lies  before  me.  I  do  not  hereby  mean  to  im- 
peach Usher's  integrity,  or,  in  general,  his  judgment ; 
but,  for  the  reasons  just  stated,  I  conclude  there  were 
good  grounds  to  question  the  authority  of  a  manu- 
script, which  does  not  appear  to  have  had  any  of  a 
similar  tenor  to  support  its  credit.  After  all,  to  what 
do  these    authorities  amount,    supposing  them  both 


103 

genuine,  and  conveying  the  sense  intended  by  the 
Chaplain  ?  Only  to  this,  that  at  the  time,  the  church 
was  not  known  by  Theodore  and  Alcuin,  to  have  made 
any  authentic  declaration  of  the  divine  institution  and 
necessity  of  confession.  The  practice  of  it,  we  may 
fairly  conclude  to  have  been  general,  from  this  cir- 
cumstance, if  all  other  proof  were  wanting,  which 
certainly  is  not  the  case ;  that  it  was  doubted,  whe- 
ther forgiveness  could  be  obtained  without  it ;  and  in 
such  a  situation,  what  prudent  and  virtuous  Chris- 
tian, anxious  to  obtain  reconciliation  with  his  Maker, 
would  neglect  the  use  of  a  mean,  perhaps  necessary 
to  procure  it  ? 

These  observations  are  equally  applicable  to  the 
authority  of  Gratian,  whether  he  was  of  the  opinion 
attributed  to  him  by  the  Chaplain  and  Maldonatus ; 
or  whether  he  only  held,  that  the  precept  of  confes- 
sion, was  not  obligatory  immediately  after  the  com- 
mission of  sin,  as  I  find  his  words  understood  by  other 
divines.  A  general  remark  will  not  be  improper  in 
this  place  ;  that  our  faith  is  formed  on  the  public 
doctrine  of  the  church,  and  not  on  the  opinions  of 
private  theologians.  It  is  indeed  requiring  too  much 
of  us,  to  account  for  all  the  singularities,  which  any 
of  them  may  have  committed  to  writing.  Does  the 
Chaplain  think,  we  cannot  produce  from  Protestant 
authors  many  concessions,  many  acknowledgments 
of  the  agreement  of  our  tenets  with  the  sense  of  an- 
tiquity, with  the  practice  of  the  first  ages,  with  the 
universal  belief  of  early  Christians  ?  Does  not  Dr. 
Cosin,  in  spite  of  all  his  animosity,  acknowledge  the 
possibility  of  transubstantiation  ?  Does  he  not  con- 
fess, that  the  water  was  changed  into  wine  at  the 


104 

marriage  feast  of  Cana  in  Galilee  ?  Do  not  the  trans- 
lators  of  Dupin's  History,  and  other  Protestants,  bear 
witness  to  the  ancient  practice  of  praying  for  the 
dead  ?  Have  not  the  invocation  of  saints,  the  honour- 
ing of  their  remains,  the  celibacy  of  our  clergy,  been 
vindicated  by  Protestant  writers  of  eminence  from  the 
misrepresentations  and  objections  of  our  opponents  ? 
Yet,  would  the  Chaplain  think  it  worth  his  while  to 
advert  to  these  authorities,  were  they  brought  forth 
against  him  ? 

This  however  is  his  method  against  us.  When  he 
comes  to  object  (P.  20.)  to  the  power  of  loosening  and 
binding,  committed  by  Christ  to  his  apostles  and  their 
successors  in  the  ministry,  he  tells  us,  that  the  famous 
Lombard,  the  Aristotle,  the  Newton  of  scholastic  di- 
vines, and  some  otners,  maintained  that  power  to  be 
only  declaratory  of  forgiveness ;  whereas,  since  the  coun- 
cil of  Trent,  it  is  become  an  article  of  our  faith,  that  the 
priest  has  power  to  forgive  sins.     (P.  20.) 

Peter  Lombard,  who  lived  in  the  12th  century,  was 
indeed  a  man  of  acknowledged  and  methodical  ge- 
nius, and  had  the  merit  of  reducing  the  scattered 
opinions  of  divines,  into  a  regular  system  or  body, 
which  has  since  been  the  groundwork  of  scholastic 
theology.  But  if  the  Chaplain,  by  calling  him  its 
JYewton  and  Aristotle,  mean  to  convey  an  idea,  that  all 
his  opinions  are  held  sacred,  he  is  greatly  mistaken; 
for  many  of  them  are  controverted,  many  universally 
rejected.  The  opinion,  for  which  he  is  here  cited,  is 
very  different  from  that  which  might  be  supposed  by 
the  Chaplain's  imperfect  representation  of  it.  For 
the  natural  inference  from  his  representation  is,  that 
the  sacerdotal  order,  not  only  do  not  exercise  a  minis- 


105 

terial  and  dependent  jurisdiction  over  repentant  sin- 
ners, (which  is  what  we  teach,)  but  likewise  that  they 
impart  no  absolution,  that  they  have  no  power  of 
loosening  or  binding;  in  a  word,  that  no  grace  is  ad- 
ministered through  the  instrumentality  of  their  minis- 
try, and  consequently  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
the  sacrament  of  penance.  Now,  all  this  is  express- 
ly contrary  to  Lombard.  He  holds  the  divine  insti- 
tution of  this  sacrament;  he  teaches  that  the  ministry 
of  absolution  truly  confers  grace  ;  that  it  has  an  in- 
ward effect  on  the  soul ;  and  though  only  declaratory 
with  regard  to  the  remission  of  the  guilt  of  sin,  is  effi- 
caciously and  actively  so,  with  respect  to  the  remission 
of  the  temporal  punishment  annexed  to  it.  The 
council  of  Trent  censured,  indeed,  the  doctrine  of  the 
reformers  in  such  terms,  as  appear  to  the  generality 
of  divines,  to  import  the  falsehood  of  Lombard's  opi- 
nion ;  but  others  do  not  think  so  ;  and  the  Chaplain 
might  have  remained  in  the  bosom  of  our  church,  and 
still  believed,  that  the  power  of  absolution  is  only  de- 
claratory, in  Lombard's  sense,  as  Tournely*  would 
have  informed  him. 

I  have  now  finished  my  observations  on  the  argu- 
mentative part  of  the  Chaplain's  letter,  with  abilities 
far  inferior  indeed  ;  but,  I  trust,  with  a  superiority  of 
cause,  which  has  enabled  me  to  leave  nothing  unan- 
swered, that  could  carry  trouble  into  your  minds,  or 
shake  the  firmness  of  your  faith.  Before  he  concludes 
his  letter,  he  has  thought  proper  to  make  a  profession 
of  his  new  belief,  and  shows  a  particular  anxiety  to  vin- 
dicate to  himself  the  appellation  of  a  Catholic.     I  am 


De  Pccn.  quits.  2.  art.  2. 
14 


106 

not  surprised  at  his  anxiety  ;  it  is  an  appellation  cha- 
racteristic of  the  true  church.  "  My  name  is  Chris- 
tian," says  Pacianus,  "  my  surname  is  Catholic. 
That  denominates  me,  this  distinguishes  me."*  And 
St.  Augustin ;  "  we  must  hold  the  Christian  religion, 
and  the  communion  of  that  church,  which  is  Catholic; 
and  which  is  called  Catholic,  not  only  by  her  own 
children,  but  by  all  her  enemies."t  But  will  the 
Chaplain  now  find  this  characteristic  in  his  new  reli- 
gion, any  more,  than  the  sectaries  of  St.  Augustin's 
times  found  it  in  theirs  ?  This  holy  doctor  having 
mentioned  various  reasons,  which  prevailed  on  him  to 
remain  in  the  communion  of  the  church,  proceeds 
thus  :  "  I  am  held  in  this  church  by  the  succession  of 
priests  coming  down  even  to  the  present  episcopacy, 
from  St.  Peter,  to  whom  Christ  after  his  resurrection 
committed  the  feeding  of  his  flock.  Finally,  T  am 
held  to  it  by  the  very  name  of  Catholic,  of  which  this 
church  alone  has,  not  without  reason,  so  kept  posses- 
sion, that,  though  ail  heretics  desire  to  be  called  Ca- 
tholics ;  yet  if  a  stranger  ask  them,  where  Catholics 
meet,  none  of  them  will  presume  to  point  out  his  own 
church,  or  his  house."J 

The  Chaplain  claims  right  to  the  title  of  Catholic, 
because  he  "  believes  and  professes  every  point  of 
Christian  faith,  which  at  all  times,  and  in  all  places,  has 
constituted  the  creed  of  all  orthodox  believers."  (P. 
35.)  For  such,  we  are  told,  is  Vincent  of  Lerins's 
description  of  a  Catholic.  In  the  preceding,  as  well 
as  subsequent  part  of  his  work,  Vincent  has  explain- 

*  Ep.  1.  ad  Sympron.  Nov. 
t  Aug.  1.  de  Vera  Re],  c.  7. 
\  Aug.  cont.  epis.  Fundam.  c.  4« 


]07 

ed  the  characteristics  of  Catholicity  so  clearly,  that  it 
Was  impossible  for  the  Chaplain  to  mistake  them ; 
and  it  was,  perhaps,  becoming  his  candour  to  have 
stated  that  author's  meaning,  when  he  was  alleging 
his  authority  to  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Worcester. 
"  It  is  necessary,"  says  he,  "  to  follow  the  universality, 
antiquity,  and  agreement  of  the  Catholic  and  apostoli- 
cal church;  and  if  a  part  revolt  against  the  whole; 
if  innovation  rise  up  against  antiquity;  if  the  dissent 
of  one  or  a  few  mistaken  men  disturb  the  agreement 
of  all,  or  of  a  great  majority  of  Catholics,  let  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  whole  be  preferred  to  the  infection  of  a 
part.  In  this  same  universality,  let  greater  regard 
be  had  to  venerable  antiquity,  than  profane  novelty; 
in  antiquity  itself,"  (that  is,  with  regard  to  doctrines, 
for  which  antiquity  is  alleged,)  "  let  the  decrees  of  a 
general  council,  if  any  exist,  in  the  first  place  be  oppos- 
ed to  the  rashness  of  a  few;  and  if  no  such  decrees 
exist,  let  Catholics  follow,  what  is  next  in  authority, 
the  agreeing  opinions  of  many  and  eminent  fathers ; 
which  things  being  faithfully,  soberly,  and  anxiously 
observed,  we  shall  easily  with  God's  help  discover 
the  pernicious  errors  of  rising  heretics."*  Will  the 
Chaplain's  Catholicity  stand  the  test  of  these  rules  ? 
Will  the  authority  of  the  learned  Vincent  of  Lerins 
justify  the  religion  which  he  has  adopted? 

He  next  alleges,  that  the  apostles'  creed  is  the 
standard  of  Catholicity  ;  but  it  must  be  subscribed,  he 
says,  in  its  full  extent.  Does  he  mean  by  these  words, 
that  every  article  of  the  creed  is  to  be  received, 
without  addition,  in  the  terms  in  which  it  is  written  ? 
Or  that  it  is  to  be  received  with  such  extension  and  ex* 

*  Vine.,  Lir.  Coram,  c,  38. 


108 

planation  as  may  comprehend  other  points  not  clearly 
expressed,  but  only  implied  therein  ?  If  this  last  be 
his  meaning,  who  shall  determine  what  is  implied  ? 
By  what  authority  shall  the  Arian  or  Macedonian  be 
bound  to  acknowledge,  that  the  divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  taught  in  the  creed  ? 
Will  he,  who  receives  the  creed  in  the  Arian  or 
Macedonian  sense,  be  a  Catholic  ?  If  it  be  the  stand- 
ard of  Catholicity,  it  surely  cannot  be  enough  to  admit 
its  words ;  but  the  sense  conveyed  by  those  words 
must  be  the  object  of  Catholic  faith.  I  admit  the 
creed,  will  each  of  these  say,  which,  whoever  admits 
in  its  full  extent,  according  to  you,  must  be  a  member  of 
the  Catholic  church.  (P.  35.)  Show  me  that  I  do  not 
so  admit  it ;  show  me,  that  by  requiring  my  assent  to 
your  explanation  and  extension  of  it,  you  do  not  re- 
quire a  submission  to  human  authority,  and  thereby 
lay  on  us  a  yoke  heavier  than  that,  with  which  you 
reproach  the  church  of  Rome  ;  for  when  she  requires 
obedience,  she  does  so  in  virtue  of  her  claim  to  infalli- 
bility ;  but  you  have  no  such  pretension.  Thus  will 
the  Arian,  Macedonian,  and  other  sectaries  argue ; 
and  I  cannot  see,  how  the  Chaplain  will  get  over 
their  objection,  consistently  with  the  principles  laid 
down  in  his  letter;  and  therefore  the  creed,  as  subject 
to  extension  and  explanation,  cannot  be  with  him,  the 
standard  of  Catholicity. 

But  if  the  Chaplain  mean,  that  the  creed  contains 
the  universal  Catholic  faith ;  that  the  profession  of  it 
alone,  without  understanding  any  thing  more  to  be 
implied,  than  is  literally  expressed,  constitutes  us 
members  of  the  Catholic  church ;  then  are  they  not 
heretic^,   who   condemn  marriage,  and   introduce   a 


109 

distinction  of  meats ;  whom  nevertheless  the  apostle 
describes  as  giving  heed  to  the  doctrine  of  devils,  speak- 
ing lies  in  hypocrisy,  and  having  their  conscience  seared  ;* 
nor  they,  who  deny  an  eternity  of  punishment,  or  as- 
sert, that  all  the  reprobated  spirits  in  hell  shall  at 
length  be  saved  ;  for  none  of  these  things  are  touch- 
ed on  in  the  creed.  Where  shall  we  find  in  it  these 
necessary  points,  the  profession  of  our  obligation  to 
love  God,  and  to  keep  holy  the  Lord's  day  ?  For 
necessary  those  points  certainly  are,  the  omission  or 
transgression  of  which,  is  a  damnable  sin.  Where 
does  the  creed  speak  of  the  necessity  of  baptism,  or 
of  the  lawfulness  of  it,  when  administered  by  here- 
tics ?  Did  not  the  Catholic  church  always  assert  the 
first,  as  an  essential  doctrine,  and  establish  the  other 
against  the  Donatists  ?  Where  finally,  to  omit  many- 
other  articles,  which  not  even  the  Chaplain  would 
deny  as  belonging  to  Catholic  faith,  does  the  creed 
propose  to  our  belief,  the  receiving  of  the  books  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  as  of  Divine  revelation  ?  It 
may  therefore  be  concluded,  and,  I  think,  upon  evi- 
dent principles,  and  in  direct  opposition  to  the  Chap- 
lain, that  a  person  may  subscribe  the  apostles'  creed, 
even  in  its  full  extent,  without  being  a  member  of  the 
Catholic  church.  I  only  make  this  exception,  that  by 
declaring  his  assent  to  these  words,  /  believe  the  holy 
Catholic  church,  he  means  not  to  acknowledge  her  un- 
erring authority  ;  for  if  he  does,  that  acknowledgment 
imports  the  belief  of  every  article,  which  she  propo- 
ses as  revealed  by  God.f 

*  1  Tim.  c.  4. 

+  The  Chaplain,  in  a  note,  (P.  35, 36.,)  obviates  the  meaning  here  insinuat- 
ed, and  attempts  to  show  an  opposition  between  the  exposition  of  this  article  of 


110 

Another  material  objection  to  the  Chaplain's  doc 
trine  is,  that  it  admits  into  the  communion  of  the 
church,  almost  all  those  who  in  every  age  of  Chris- 
tianity have  been  deemed  heretics,  and  the  corrupters 
of  faith.  The  great  council  of  Nice,  which  the  first 
Protestants  pretended  to  respect  as  replenished  with 
a  truly  Catholic  spirit,  in  their  eighth  canon,  speak  of 
the  Novatians  as  being  out  of  the  Catholic  church. 
Their  errors  consisted,  1st.  In  denying  the  power  of 
the  church  to  forgive  sins,  particularly  that  of  apos- 
tacy  from  faith  ;  2dly.  la  requiring  the  rebaptization 
of  those,  who  had  been  baptized  by  heretics  ;  3dly.  In 
condemning  second  marriages.  I  doubt  whether  the 
Chaplain  will  find  any  of  these  errors  reprobated  in 
the  apostles'  creed.  St.  Cyprian  expressly  teaches,* 
that  the  Novatians  made  use  of  no  other  creed,  than 
that  of  the  Catholics;  which  undoubtedly  was  that  of 
the  apostles  ;  and  yet  they  were  deemed  heretics,  and 
out  of  the  communion  of  the  church. 

The  Donatists,  in  like  manner,  because  they  re- 
jected baptism  administered  by  heretics,  were  denied 
communion  with  the  Catholic  church ;  but  the  creed 

the  creed,  in  the  catechism  of  the  council  of  Trent,  and  that  of  many  of  our 
^religious  instructors.  But  they  must  be  ignorant  instructors  indeed,  who 
know  not  that  by  believing  in  God,  we  profess  to  believe  both  that  he  is,  and 
that  his  word  is  infallible,  as  being  founded  in  the  divine  perfections  of  infi- 
nite wisdom  and  truth  ;  whereas,  by  believing  the  Catholic  church,  we  make 
profession  of  acknowledging  her  existence ;  and  that  God  communicates  to 
us,  through  her,  those  truths,  which  we  must  receive,  not  as  the  words  of  man, 
but  as  they  truly  are,  the  words  of  God.  Just  so  the  Chaplain  admits  the 
scriptural  doctrines  delivered  by  the  apostles  and  evangelists  ;  nevertheless, 
he  does  not  fail  in  making  a  sufficient  difference  between  God  and  his  creatures ; 
but  he  knows  that  divine  omnipotence  can  render  mortal  men  infallible  in 
communicating  revealed  doctrines  to  others;  and  which  must  ultimately  be 
believed  for  the  authority  of  God  alone. 
*  Cyp.  ep.  76.  ad  Magnum. 


Ill 

they  did  not  deny.  "  You  are  with  us,"  says  St.  Au- 
gustin,  "  in  baptism,  in  the  creed,  in  the  other  sacra- 
ments of  God;  but  in  the  spirit  of  unity,  and  in  the 
bond  of  peace  ;  finally,  in  the  Catholic  church  you  are 
not  with  us."#  I  infer  then  again,  that  it  was  not  the 
intention  of  the  apostles  to  conclude  in  their  creed 
the  universal  Christian  Catholic  faith. 

You  are  now  prepared  to  form  a  true  estimate  of 
the  Chaplain's  universal  belief,  as  expressed  in  the 
placet  we  have  been  considering.  As  I  before  said, 
almost  every  sect,  that  ever  deformed  the  face  of 
Christianity,  might  be  taken  into  it.  Sabellians  and 
Arians  ;  Nestorians  and  Eutychians';  Socinians  and 
many  Deists;  and  the  disciples  of  that  modern  author, 
(his  name  is  celebrated  in  the  literary  world,)  who 
has  lately  discovered,  that  the  doctrine  of  a  pre-ex- 
istent  nature  in  Christ,  that  is,  of  his  having  existed 
before  his  Incarnation,  is  a  corruption  of  Christianity  ; 
all  these,  however  discordant  in  their  principles, 
would  subscribe  the  apostles'  creed  ;  and  might  say 
that  they  embraced  no  new  religion,  but  only  discarded 
some  doctrines,  which  had  been  engrafted  upon  the  old  one. 
Thus,  in  a  short  time,  under  pretence  of  reducing 
our  faith  to  the  primitive  simplicity  of  the  creed, 
every  tenet  would  be  successively  rejected,  which 
curbs  our  passions,  or  subjects  our  understanding. 
"  If  once  this  impious  licentiousness  be  admitted," 
sa)s  the  excellent  Vincent  of  Lerins,  "  I  dread  to  say, 
how  great  will  be  the  danger  of  destroying  and  extir- 
pating religion.  For,  if  any  one  part  of  the  Catholic 
doctrine  be  rejected,  another  and  another  will  share 

•  Aug.  ep.  93.  (olim  48.)  ad  Vincentium.  t  P.  36. 


112 

the  same  fate ;  and  at  length  it  will  become  a  prac- 
tice, and  deemed  lawful  to  discard  others ;  thus  the 
tenets  of  religion  being  rejected  one  by  one,  what 
will  finally  ensue,  but  the  rejection  of  the  whole  to- 
gether."* 

The  Chaplain  proceeds  to  tell  the  Roman  Catholics 
of  Worcester,  that  his  religion  is  that  of  the  Bible; 
but  that  their  religion  is  the  doctrine  of  the  council 
of  Trent;  insinuating  thus  an  opposition  between  the 
two.  But  do  not  Catholics,  as  well  as  he  himself,  recur 
to  scripture,  as  the  foundation  of  their  religion  ?  Does 
not  the  council  of  Trent  profess  the  most  profound 
veneration  for,  and  implicit  belief  of  every  part  of 
scripture  ?  Does  it  not,  in  all  its  decrees  and  defini- 
tions of  faith,  assert  the  tenets  of  the  church  on  the 
authority  of  scripture  ?  If  then  both  the  council  and 
Chaplain  be  solicitous  to  form  their  faith  on  scripture, 
which  is  most  likely  to  discover  the  true  meaning 
thereof?  If  the  Chaplain  deem  it  his  duty  to  rely 
most  on  his  own  private  interpretation,  the  Catholics 
of  Worcester  think  it  wiser,  and  more  consistent  with 
humility  and  obedience,  to  follow  that  church,  which 
iesus  Christ  has  promised  to  lead  into  all  truth ;  and 
to  hear  those  instructors,  whom  he  has  appointed  to 
teach  all  things  whichsoever  he  has  commanded. 

I  rely  solely,  says  the  Chaplain,  upon  the  authority  of 
God'' s  word ;  (P.  38.;)  and  do  we  not  likewise  rely 
solely  upon  the  same  authority  ?  No,  insinuates  the 
Chaplain  ;  you  Catholics  think  it  necessary  to  recur  to 
unwritten  tradition.  And,  pray,  what  is  the  tradition 
to  which  we  recur,  but  the  word  of  God,  delivered 

*  Vinc.Lir.  Conam,  c.  81. 


113 

down  to  us  by  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  and  in  the 
public  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  church  ?  Does  not 
the  Chaplain  himself  receive  the  written  word  of  God 
from  the  same  testimony  and  tradition  ?  Why  is  it 
less  to  be  depended  on  in  witnessing  the  unwritten 
word  of  God,  than  in  delivering  down,  and  separating 
the  true  and  genuine  books  of  scripture  from  those 
which  are  false  or  corrupted?  He  demands,  with  St. 
Cyprian,  whence  we  have  our  tradition  ?  We  answer, 
from  the  apostles,  from  their  successors,  from  the  at- 
testation of  Christians,  spread  throughout  the  world ; 
and  St/ Augustin  proves  our  right  to  assign  this  ori- 
gin ;  because,  says  he,  "  what  the  universal  church 
holds,  and  was  not  instituted  in  a  council,  but  was  al- 
ways maintained,  is  most  reasonably  concluded  to  be 
derived  from  apostolical  institution."*  But  St.  Cy- 
prian requires,  that  it  be  commanded  in  the  gospel,  or  cow 
tained  in  the  epistles  or  acts  of  the  apostles.  (P.  38.) 
What  wonder,  that  St.  Cyprian,  while  he  was  en- 
gaged, as  he  then  was,  in  the  error  of  the  Donatists, 
should  speak  their  language ;  and,  like  all  other  op- 
posers  of  the  authority  of  the  church,  should  call  for 
scripture  proofs,  which  can  never  be  effectual,  be- 
cause they  can  always  be  explained  away  by  human 
ingenuity  ?  Wherefore  St.  Augustin,  in  his  5th  book, 
23d  ch.  on  baptism,  against  the  Donatists,  particular- 
ly refutes  the  writing  now  objected  out  of  Cyprian ; 
and  it  is  wonderful,  indeed,  if  the  Chaplain  did  not 
diseover  this  in  the  very  place  from  which,  1  pre- 
sume, he  copied  his  objection.  He  sometimes  cites 
Vincent  of  Lerins.     Will  he    then   allow  one,  who 


Ang.  de  Rapt,  contra  Donat.  1.  4.  C.  6. 
15 


114 

still  retains  the  most  sincere  good  will  for  him,  to  re- 
commend to  his  reading  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Vin- 
cent's excellent  work?  Will  he  notice,  what  Vincent 
there  says,  of  those  who  endeavour  to  support  their 
false  opinions,  by  quotations  from  Cyprian's  works, 
written  while  he  was  engaged  in  the  defence  of  error? 

The  Chaplain  adds,  that  we  deem  the  scriptures 
deficient  and  obscure  ;  but  he  asks,  Where  is  the  defi- 
ciency ?  Where  is  the  obscurity  ?  (Ibid.)  Deficient, 
they  certainly  are  not,  if  it  be  meant,  that  they  do  not 
answer  the  views  and  designs  of  divine  Providence 
in  causing  them  to  be  written ;  but  in  this  sense  they 
are  deficient,  that  they  do  not  contain  all  necessary 
points  of  belief  and  practice  ;  which,  I  think,  has  been 
sufficiently  proved ;  and  is  declared  by  St.  Paul  in 
the  words  before  cited  ;  Brethren,  stand  and  hold  fast 
the  traditions  you  have  been  taught,  whether  by  word  or 
our  epistle* 

But  where  shall  we  find  the  obscurity  of  the  scripture  ? 
We  shall  find  it  in  almost  every  book  of  holy  writ ; 
we  shall  find  it,  where  St.  Peter  tells  us  it  is  to  be 
found,  in  Paul's  epistles,  in  which  are  some  things  hard 
to  be  understood,  and  ivhich,  as  well  as  all  other  scrip- 
tures, the  unlearned  and  unstable  wrest  to  their  own  de- 
struction.^ But  St.  Chrysostom  assures  us,  that  scrip- 
ture expounds  itself,  and  does  not  suffer  the  reader  to  err. 
(P.  38.)  The  Chaplain  is  conversant  in  history,  and 
undoubtedly  a  person  of  observation.  Can  he  then 
seriously  believe  or  imagine  it  to  be  Chrysostom's 
meaning,  that  the  scripture  expounds  itself  in  all 
points  to  every  reader,  so  that  he  cannot  err  ?     Ie 

*  2  Thees.  ii.  15.  t  2  Pet.  iii.  16, 


115 

every  one  able  to  make  that  conference  and  compa- 
rison of  the  different  passages  of  scripture,  which  lead 
to  its  true  interpretation  ?  Can  any  thing  more  be  in- 
tended by  that  great  doctor,  than  that  scripture  di- 
rects every  reader  to  such  a   rule  of  exposition,  as 
secures  him  from  error  ?    But  is  his  private  interpre- 
tation this  infallible  rule  ?   Or  is  il  that  of  the  church, 
manifested  in  her  public  doctrine,  by  the  ministers  of 
her  appointment?     Hear  St.   Chrysostom  himself: 
•'  Take   the   book   in   your  hand ;    read   a  passage 
throughout ;  keep  present  to  your  mind,  what  you  un- 
derstand; but  return  frequently  to  the  reading  of  those 
things,  which  are  obscure  and  difficult ;  and  if  by  re- 
peated reading  you  cannot  find  out  their  meaning,  go 
to  a  teacher,  go  to  one   wiser  than  yourself."*     To 
the  authority  of  Chrysostom  might  be  added,  I  be- 
lieve, that  of  every  father  of  the  church;  and  most  of 
them  have  delivered  their  opinions  of  the  insufficien- 
cy and  obscurity  of  scripture,  not  in  fragments  of  a 
sentence,  but  treating  professedly  and  fully  on   this 
very  subject.     To  these  allow  me  to  add  an  authori- 
ty, which,  with  many  of  our  Protestant  brethren,  will 
weigh  more  than  that  of  all  the  fathers.    Thus,  then, 
Luther,  in  his  preface  to  the  psalms :  **  It  is  a  most 
audacious  presumption  in  any  one  to  say*  that  he  un- 
derstands every  part  even  of  one  book  of  scripture."! 
Let  the  Chaplain  recollect  all  the  disputes  and  varia- 
tions even  amongst  Protestants  themselves,  concern- 
ing the  meaning  of  these  words  spoken  by  Christ  at 

*  Chrys.  hom.  3.  de  Lazaro. 

t  Sciq  esse  impudentissima?  temeritatis  eum,  qui  audeat  profiteri  uuuoo 
scripturae  librum  a  se  in  omnibus  partibus  intellectum.  Lvth.pmf.  in  Ps*l 
ap.  Bell,  de  R.  F.  1.  3.  c,  21. 


116 

his  last  supper,  This  is  my  body.  \i  innumerable  argu- 
ments evince  to  him  their  meaning  to  be  figurative,  he  can- 
not forget,  that  Luther  and  Dr.  Cosin,  a  bishop  of  the 
church  of  England,  pronounce  anathemas  against  the 
maintainers  of  a  figurative  sense.  After  this,  will  he 
so  confidently  repeat  his  interrogation,  where  is  the  de- 
ficiency, where  is  the  obscurity  of  Scripture  ? 

He  is  content,  he  says,  to  acquiesce  in  that  authority,  to 
which  alone  St.  Austin  and  St.  Chrysostom  refer  usy 
(P.  38.,)  insinuating  hereby,  that  scripture  is  that 
sole  authority.  How  he  came  to  mention  St.  Augus- 
tin  on  this  occasion,  I  am  at  a  loss  to  conceive.  This 
holy  father  has  made  a  clear  profession  of  receiving 
scripture  itself,  only  because  it  came  recommended  to 
him  by  the  church.  "  I  would  not,"  says  he,  "believe 
the  gospel,  if  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  church  did 
not  move  me  thereunto."*  In  his  controversies  with 
the  Manicheans  and  Donatists,  he  repeatedly  appeals 
to  the  authority  and  practice  of  the  Catholic  church; 
he  tells  the  latter,  that  neither  they,  nor  the  Catho- 
lics, have  any  clear  scripture  for  their  different 
opinions  concerning  rebaptization;  but  that  the  former, 
by  refusing  to  submit  to  the  church,  resist  not  man, 
but  our  Saviour  himself,  who  in  the  gospel  bears  tes- 
timony to  the  church.t  The  pretended  authority 
from  St  Chrysostom  is  no  more  his  than  mine ;  it  is 
a  reference  to  the  same  exploded  passage,  as  was 
cited  in  the  Chaplain's  note,  (P.  9.,)  of  which  enough 
has  been  said. 

I  have  now  gone  through  a  task  painful  in  every 

*  Ego  vero  evangelio  non  crederem,  nisi  me  ecclesiae  Catholics  commoTC» 
^et  auctoritas.     Aug.  cont.  Epis.  Fundam.  c.  5. 

*  Aug.  lib.  1.  cont.  Cresc.c.  33.— &  de  Unit.  Eccl. 


117 

point  of  view  in  which  I  could  consider  it.  To  write 
for  the  public  eye,  on  any  occasion  whatever,  is  neither 
agreeable  to  my  feelings,  my  leisure,  nor  opportunities ; 
that  it  is  likewise  disproportioned  to  my  abilities,  my 
readers,  I  doubt,  will  soon  discover.  But  if  reduced  to 
the  necessity  of  publishing,  I  would  wish  that  my  duty 
led  me  to  any  species  of  composition,  rather  than  that 
of  religious  controversy.  Mankind  have  conceived 
such  a  contempt  for  it,  that  an  author  cannot  enter- 
tain a  hope  of  enjoying  those  gratifications,  which  in 
treating  other  subjects  may  support  his  spirits  and 
enliven  his  imagination.  Much  less  could  I  have  a 
prospect  of  these  incitements  in  the  prosecution  of 
my  present  undertaking.  I  could  not  forget,  in  the 
beginning,  progress,  and  conclusion  of  it,  that  the  habits 
of  thinking,  the  prejudices,  perhaps  even  the  passions 
of  many  of  my  readers,  would  be  set  against  all  the 
arguments  I  could  offer;  and  that  the  weaknesses, 
the  errors,  the  absurdities  of  the  writer,  would  be  im- 
puted to  the  errors  and  absurdity  of  his  religion. 
But  of  all  considerations,  the  most  painful  was,  that  1 
had  to  combat  him,  with  whom  I  had  Jbeen  connected 
in  an  intercourse  of  friendship  and  mutual  good 
offices  ;  and  in  connexion  with  whom,  I  hoped  to  have 
consummated  my  course  of  our  common  ministry,  in  the 
service  of  virtue  and  religion.  But  when  I  found 
these  expectations  disappointed  ;  when  I  found  that 
he  not  only  had  abandoned  our  faith  and  communion, 
but  had  imputed  to  us  doctrines  foreign  to  our  belief, 
and  having  a  natural  tendency  to  embitter  against  us 
the  minds  of  our  fellow  citizens,  I  felt  an  anguish  too 
keen  for  description ;  and  perhaps  the  Chaplain  will 


118 

experience  a  similar  sentiment,  when  he  comes  coolly 
to  reflect  on  this  instance  of  his  conduct.  It  did  not 
become  the  friend  of  toleration  to  misinform,  and 
to  sow  in  minds  so  misinformed,  the  seeds  of  religious 
animosity. 

Under  all  these  distressful  feelings,  one  considera- 
tion alone  relieved  me  in  writing;  and  that  was,  the 
hope  of  vindicating  your  religion  to  your  own  selves 
at  least,  and  preserving  the  steadfastness  of  your 
faith.  But  even  this  prospect  should  not  have  indu- 
ced me  to  engage  in  the  controversy,  if  I  could  fear 
that  it  would  disturb  the  harmony  now  subsisting 
amongst  all  Christians  in  this  country,  so  blessed 
with  civil  and  religious  liberty  ;  which,  if  we  have  the 
wisdom  and  temper  to  preserve,  America  may  come 
to  exhibit  a  proof  to  the  world,  that  general  and 
equal  toleration,  by  giving  a  free  circulation  to  fair 
argument*  is  the  most  effectual  method  to  bring  all  de- 
nominations of  Christians  to  a  unity  of  faith. 

The  motives,  which  led  the  Chaplain  to  the  step 
he  has  taken,  are  known  best  to  God  and  himself. 
For  the  vindication  of  his  conduct,  he  appeals  to  the 
dictates  of  conscience  with  a  seriousness  and  solem- 
nity, which  must  add  greatly  to  his  guilt,  if  he  be  not 
sincere.  He  is  anxious  to  impress  on  his  readers  a 
firm  conviction,  that  neither  views  of  preferment  nor 
sensuality,  had  any  influence  on  his  determination. 
He  appears  to  be  jealous,  that  suspicions  will  arise 
unfavourable  to  the  purity  of  his  intentions.  He  shall 
have  no  cause  to  impute  to  me,  the  spreading  of  these 
suspicions.  But  I  must  entreat  him  with  an  earnest- 
ness suggested  by  the  most  perfect  good  will  and  zeal 


119 

ous  regard  for  his  welfare,  to  consider  the  sanctity  ot 
the  solemn  and  deliberate  engagement,  which  at  an  age 
of  perfect  maturity  he  contracted  with  Almighty  God. 
I  pray  him  to  read  the  two  exhortations  of  that  en- 
lightened doctor  St.  Chrysostom  to  his  friend  Theodo- 
rus,  who,  like  the  Chaplain,  had  renounced  his  for- 
mer state,  in  which  by  a  vow  of  celibacy  he  had  con- 
secrated himself  to  Almighty  God.  "  You  allege," 
says  the  saint  to  his  friend,  "  that  marriage  is  lawful; 
this  I  readily  acknowledge  ;  but  it  is  not  now  in  your 
power  to  embrace  that  state  ;  for  it  is  certain,  that 
one,  who  by  a  solemn  engagement  has  given  himself 
to  God,  as  his  heavenly  spouse,  if  he  violate  this  con- 
tract, commits  adultery,  though  he  should  a  thousand 
times  call  it  marriage.  Nay,  he  is  guilty  of  a  crime 
so  much  the  more  enormous,  as  the  majesty  of  God 
surpasses  man.  Had  you  been  free,  no  one  could 
charge  you  with  desertion ;  but  since  you  are  con- 
tracted to  so  great  a  king,  you  are  not  at  your  own 
disposal."*  See  here,  how  far  St.  Chrysostom  was 
from  considering  the  law  of  celibacy  as  a  cruel  usur- 
pation of  the  unalienable  rights  of  nature,  as  unwarrant- 
able i?i  its  principle,  inadequate  in  its  object,  and  dreadful 
in  its  consequences.  He  considered  a  vow  of  celibacy 
as  an  engagement,  or  contract  entered  into  with 
Almighty  God;  independent  therefore  of  the  disci- 
pline of  any  society  as  to  its  binding  power,  and  not 
to  be  released  but  by  God's  relinquishing  his  right  to 
exact  a  rigorous  compliance  with  the  obligation  of  it. 
He  thought  that  the  sanctity  of  religion  was  interest- 
f>xl  in  the  performance  of  so  sacred  an  engagement,, 

*  Chrys.  ad  Theod.  laps.  Exh.  2. 


120 

according  to  Deuteron.  xxiii.  21.  When  thou  hast 
vowed  a  vow  to  the  Lord  our  God,  thou  shalt  not  be 
slack  to  pay  it,  because  our  Lord  thy  God  will  require 
it. — That,  which  is  once  gone  out  of  thy  lips,  thou  shalt 
observe,  and  shalt  do,  as  thou  hast  promised  to  our  Lord 
thy  God,  and  hast  spoken  with  thy  proper  will  and  thy 
own  mouth. 


THE    EN13. 


A 


REPLY 


AN  ADDRESS  TO  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLICS 


ONITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA 


P.V  THE  AUTHOR  OF   4  LETTER  TO  TIIF  ROMAN  CATHOLICS  OT 
THF.  CITV  OF   WORCESTER. 


isew-yokk  : 

1 '•!  I TRMSHED  HV  DAVID  I.OXf, WORTH,  NO.  11   PARK 
CJhunn  fcc  Kbtgsland,  Priiitf  iv. 

IR17 


A 

REPLY 


TO 


AN  ADDRESS  TO  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLICS 

©F    THE 

UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA. 


It  is  with  deep  concern,  that  the  late  Worcester 
Chaplain  finds  himself  under  the  disagreeable  neces- 
sity of  appearing  again  before  the  tribunal  of  the 
public.  He  is  well  convinced,  that  of  making  many 
books  there  is  no  end,  and  has  experienced  that  much 
study  is  a  weariness  of  the  flesh*  But  an  attack,  of  a 
complexion  which  he  did  not  expect,  lately  made  upon 
his  character,  rouses  every  faculty  of  defence,  that 
reason  suggests,  or  truth  can  authorize.  The 
weapon  now  levelled  at  his  candour  and  accuracy, 
must,  if  possible,  be  parried  by  the  Chaplain  :  and, 
what  to  him  is  exquisitely  painful,  must  be  made  to 
recoil  upon  the  hand  that  wields  it.  From  some  par- 
tial information,  he  had  been  led  to  expect,  that  the 
reverend  and  learned  Author  of  the  address  would 
treat  his  little  letter  with  some  degree  of  indulgence. 

»  Eccl,  \ii.  \1. 


and  allow  its  writer  that  credit  for  his  uprightness 
and  sincerity,  to  which  the  most  solemn  professions  of 
both,  were  entitled  from  a  friend.  But  he  is  grieved 
to  find,  that  the  Reverend  Author  honours  him  no 
longer  with  this  endearing  appellation.  Without  the 
imputation  of  any  personal  offence ;  nay,  at  a  time 
when  his  bosom  was  warm  with  something  more  than 
the  cold  sentiment  of  perfect  good  will,  when  his 
tongue,  in  every  company,  was  almost  eloquent  at  the 
bare  mention  of  the  Reverend  Gentleman's  name, 
when  he  was  feasting  on  the  hopes  that  their  united 
efforts  were  engaged  in  the  sacred  cause  of  Christian 
toleration,  and  that  a  difference  in  some  religious 
speculations,  would  have  little  tendency  to  cool  their 
mutual  affections — at  this  moment,  I  say,  the  unfortu- 
nate Chaplain  was  experiencing  a  sad  reverse  in  the 
heart  of  him  whom  he  loved  without  reserve,  and 
sinking  to  the  idea  of  a  cast-off,  former  friend*  Under 
the  weight  of  regret  arising  from  this  melancholy 
circumstance,  the  Chaplain's  mind  is  but  ill  disposed 
to  strew  over  a  dry  and  exhausted  subject  those 
flowers  of  splendid  diction,  or  that  gayety  of  fancy, 
which  alone  can  render  it  palatable  to  the  generality 
of  readers.  They,  however,  who  may  have  expe- 
rienced a  similar  trial,  will  find  an  excuse  in  their 
sympathy  for  the  deficiency  of  amusement.  Having 
dropt  this  monumental  tear  over  the  Rev.  Gentle- 
man's former  friendship,  the  Chaplain  hastens  to  the 
object  of  this  pamphlet,  which  is  intended  merely  as 
a  short  vindication  of  the  sentiments  contained  in  his 
little  letter,  and  of  the  authenticity  of  the  quotations 
upon  which  they  are   grounded.     It  is  not  his  inten- 

•  Address,  p.  ?0.  no^* 


tion  to  follow  the  Rev.  Author  of  the  address  through 
all  the  mazes  of  extraneous  matter  which  he  has  an- 
nexed to  his  animadversions  on  some  passages  of  the 
letter,  or  to  repel  by  fresh  arguments  any  revived  at- 
tacks upon  the  Protestant  cause.  Neither  his  leisure 
nor  inclination  now  allow  him  to  undertake  what  has  been 
done  by  much  abler  hands.  The  Rev.  Author  and  Pro- 
testants  also  know  where  to  look  for  these  arguments. 
The  writers  cited  by  the  Chaplain  will  exhibit  them 
with  such  profusion,  perspicuity,  and  candour,  that  the 
charge  of  gross  misrepresentation,  unfair  quotations,  par- 
tied  answers,  inconsistency,  and  contradictions,  so  freely 
alleged  against  them  by  the  Rev.  Gentleman,*'  will 
make  but  a  slight  impression  upon  minds  not  previ- 
ously warped  by  strong  and  early  prejudices.  Incon- 
sistency and  contradictions,  indeed,  are  often  compati- 
ble with  every  virtue  of  the  heart,  and  must  be 
implied  to  opinions  that  run  counter  to  our  own ;  but 
gross  misrepresentations  and  unfair  quotations  are  words 
of  a  harsh  import,  and  will  hardly  apply  to  the  pious 
Claude,  the  candid  Chillingworth,  and  the-  venerable 
Usher  :  names  too  long  consecrated  in  the  temples 
of  erudition  and  virtue,  to  be  tarnished  by  the  breath 
of  indiscriminate  accusation.  O  may  the  Chaplain's 
name  be  enrolled  with  these  worthies  in  the  annals 
of  sincerity,  and  as  long  as  his  private  history  shall  be 
remembered,  may  his  moral  fame  run  parallel  with 
theirs ! 

The  Chaplain  has  already  hinted  at  the  two  points 
of  view,  in  which  he  considers  the  Rev.  Gentleman's 
address.  He  conceives  it  to  be  an  impeachment  of  his 

*  Addres?,  p,  2£. 


6 

candour  as  a  gentleman,  and  of  his  accuracy  as  a 
scholar.  He  is  far  from  imagining,  that  the  Rev.  Au- 
thor intended  that  his  publication  should  be  consider- 
ed in  so  hostile  a  light.  Some  expressions  of  regard 
for  the  Chaplain  forbid  the  idea.  But  surely,  no  man 
can  admit  his  frequent  suspicions  of  a  want  of  candour 
in  his  former  friend,  or  his  free  arraignment  of  his  ac- 
curacy in  quotation,  but  must  conclude  him  destitute 
of  these  essentials  to  character.  To  wipe  away, 
therefore,  any  unfavourable  impressions,  which  his 
recent  connexions  may  experience  from  the  address* 
the  Chaplain  is  compelled  to  enter  the  lists  with  a 
veteran  divine  of  abilities  very  superior  to  his  own  ;  to 
contend  with  a  man,  whose  extensive  knowledge, 
whose  refined  and  elegant  mind,  can  polish  even  the 
roughness  of  scholastic  theology.  Perhaps,  in  the  be- 
nevolence of  his  heart,  the  Rev.  Gentleman  himself 
will  excuse  the  unequal  contest,  when  he  comes  to  re- 
flect, that  the  almost  total  loss  and  aversion  of  the 
Chaplain's  former  connexions,  must  greatly  enhance 
She  valuo  of  those,  with  which  he  has  lately  been  ho- 
noured. 

The  first  assertion  in  the  letter  to  the  Roman  Catho- 
lics of  Worcester  at  which  the  Rev.  Gentleman  takes 
offence,  is,  that  no  consistent  Roman  Catholic  can  be  a  can- 
did inquirer  in  matters  of  religion*  The  Chaplain, 
when  he  penned  this  line,  was  aware  of  the  Rev. 
Gentleman's  objections,  and  therefore  marked  the 
word  consistent  with  a  special  emphasis.  He  trusts, 
that  this  precaution  alone  will  be  able  to  reconcile  his 
assertion  with  candour.^     For  he  will  only  ask  this  one 

*  Letler,  p.  8.  t  Address,  p.  10. 


plain  question,  Can  he  be  called  an  impartial  inquirer, 
who,  previous  to  his  inquiry,  is  obliged,  under  pain  of 
damnation,  to  believe  his  own  opinions  to  be  true  and 
those  of  his  adversary  groundless  and  false  ?  Now,  is 
not  this  precisely  the  case  with  every  consistent  Ro- 
man Catholic  ?  Does  he  not  believe  with  the  assent 
of  faith,  that  every  article  of  his  creed  is  as  incompa- 
tible with  falsehood  as  God  himself?  To  what  pur- 
pose, therefore,  are  Protestant  authors  open  to  his  in- 
spection? Can  he  read  them  with  a  view  to  religious 
information,  to  discover  truths,  which  he  is  already 
persuaded  are  not  to  be  found  ?  And  yet,  he  must 
be  allowed  to  do  this,  before  the  Chaplain's  candour 
can  be  questioned.  The  fact  is,  he  may  seek  for  in- 
formation, but  not  religious  information,  in  the  writings 
of  Protestants.  The  Rev.  Gentleman  passes  by  this 
material  distinction,  upon  which  the  Chaplain's  can- 
dour principally  rests.  For  it  is  utterly  impossible, 
that  with  a  full  conviction  of  the  truth  and  evidence 
of  a  tenet,  a  man  can  seek  information  that  may  pos- 
sibly refute  it.  He  may  look  into  the  writers  upon  the 
opposite  opinion,  in  order  to  detect  the  inconsistency  of 
their  principles,  their  unfair  quotations,  their  partial  an- 
swers, their  gross  misrepresentations ;  but  is  this  to 
seek  religious  information,  even  in  the  sense  that  Le~ 
land  admits  it  ?  Is  this  a  disposition  to  embrace  truth  on 
which  side  soever  it  shall  appear?  When  a  man,  for 
instance,  conceives  himself  obliged  to  admit  the  doc- 
trine of  transubstantiation  at  the  peril  of  his  soul,  is 
he  disposed  to  embrace  truth  on  which  side  soever  it  dp- 
pears  ?  Can  he  doubt  for  a  moment  the  truth  of  this 
tenet  without  ceasing  to  be  a  consistent  Roman  Catho- 
lic?   The  Rev.  Gentleman  knows  what  line  of  duty 


is  marked  out  by  all  casuists  in  cases  of  this  nature. 
He  knows,  that  so  far  from  harbouring  a  doubt  of 
any  doctrinal  point,  the  understanding  must  instantly 
shut  up  ewery  avenue,  through  which  it  had  entered, 
and  produce  an  explicit  act  of  belief  of  that  article.* 
Can  the  Rev.  Gentleman  point  out  in  all  this  any  de- 
gree of  that  indifference  so  essential  to  rational  inves- 
ts 

tigation  ?  With  reason,  therefore,  did  the  Chaplain 
affirm,  that  no  consistent  Roman  Catholic  can  be  a  can- 
did inquirer  in  matters  of  religion ;  and  was  autho- 
rized to  add,  moreover,  that  to  seek  religious  informa- 
tion in  the  ivritings  of  Protestants,  ivas  to  incur  the  seve- 
rest censures  of  the  Roman  Church. 

/The  Rev.  Gentleman  does  not  pretend  to  deny, 
that  wherever  the  Bulla  Camce  is  received,  it  must 
have  its  effect.  In  Italy,  therefore,  and  some  other 
countries,  excommunication  must  still  be  their  lot,  who 
presume  to  peruse  any  Protestant  treatise  upon  reli- 
gion. In  the  parts  of  Christendom,  however,  where 
this  Bull  is  not  received,  the  works  of  Protestants 
may  be  read  with  impunity.  Thus  a  grievous  crime 
in  one  country,  is  not  even  a  venial  offence  in  another. 
This  must  be  the  sentiment  of  every  Roman  Catho- 
lic ;  and  yet  its  consistency  can  hardly  be  admitted. 
For,  if  the  Pope  be  a  Doctor  of  the  church,  by  way  of 
eminence,  as  he  is  frequently  styled,  if  he  be  entitled  to 
the  pompous  appellations  of  Master  of  the  World,  of 
Universal  Father,  which  were  frequently  bestowed  on 
him  in  the  eleventh  century  ;t  if  he  be  a  Divine  Ma- 
jesty, the  Husband  of  the  Church,  the  Prince  of  the  Apos- 
tles, the  Prince  and  King  of  all  the  Universe  ;  if  he  be 

*  See  the  Casuists,  passim. 
t  Mosheiui's  Church  History. 


9 

the  Pastor,  the  Physician,  and  a  God,  to  use  the  lan- 
guage of  the  council  of  Lateran,  speaking  to  Leo  X.,# 
who  will  dare  question  his  right  to  proscribe  such 
sources  of  information  as,  in  his  wisdom,  he  shall 
deem  pernicious  to  his  subjects  ?  Inconsistency  apart, 
he  must  have  a  daring  soul,  who  shall  venture  upon 
a  pasture,  which  the  Universal  Shepherd  pronounces 
to  be  poisonous,  and  forbids  his  flock  to  taste,  at  the 
hazard  of  their  salvation.  The  Rev.  Gentleman  will 
not  deny  that  these  lofty  pretensions  have  their  effect 
to  this  day.  Else  why  are  Roman  Catholics  con- 
stantly advised  to  obtain  permission  to  read  heretical 
books  for  the  security  of  their  consciences  ?  Among 
the  faculties,  as  they  are  called,  or  parochial  powers 
conferred  on  R.  C.  missionaries  even  in  England,  is 
not  a  special  license  granted  for  keeping  and  read^ 
ing  heretical  books  ?  The  Chaplain's  warrant  on  this 
head  is  expressed  in  these  words  :  Conceditur  facultas 
tenei\di  et  legendi  libros  hazreticorum  de  eorum  religione 
tractantes  ad  effectum  eos  expugnandi.  "  Leave  is  grant- 
ed to  keep  and  read  the  books  of  heretics,  which 
treat  of  their  religion,  in  order  to  refute  them.''''  These 
lines  place  this  whole  matter  in  its  proper  point  of 
view.  They  evidently  evince  to  what  purpose  Roman 
Catholics  are  indulged  in  the  reading  of  Protestant 
authors.  Not,  it  is  presumed,  for  the  sake  of  impar- 
tial investigation,  but  solely  to  comhat  and  refute  them. 
The  Rev.  Gentleman  may  say,  then,  with  as  much  con- 
fidence as  he  pleases,  that  rational  investigation  is  as  open 
to  Catholics,  as  to  any  other  set  of  men  on  the  face  of  the  earth.'f 
But  persons  of  real  candour  will  still  give  the  Chap- 


*  Easnage,  vol.  3.  p.  556.  t  Address,  p.  11. 


10 

lain  credit  for  the  same  valuable  quality,  until  it  be 
proved  that  religious  information  also,  is  equally  open 
to  Roman  Catholics  as  to  others;  or  that  the 
Protestant  churches  forbid  the  reading  of  Roman 
Catholic  writers,  unless  it  be  with  a  view  to  confute 
them. 

Hitherto  the  Chaplain  conceives  his  candour  to  be 
unsullied.       The  Rev.  Gentleman,  through  eleven 
pages  of  his  address,*  has  furnished  a  crowd  of  argu- 
ments to  support  it.     His  whole  train  of  reasoning 
goes  evidently    to  illustrate  the  Chaplain's  assertion, 
that  the  Roman  church  is  daily  undergoing  a  silent  refor- 
mation :    that  the  dark  monsters  of  superstition  and  bigo- 
try are  retreating  gradually  before  the  light  of  genuine 
religion  and  philosophy, ~\  and,   that  her  more  enlightened 
divines  reject  or  explain  a*way  her  most  uncharitable  tenets  : 
For  the  Chaplain  will  be  bold  to  affirm,  that  the  Rev. 
Gentleman  is  the  first  Roman  Catholic  divine,   who 
has  been  eager,  and  zealous,  and  copious  to  demon- 
strate, that  Protestants  may  be  members  of  the  Catholic 
churchy  and  consequently,  as  suchj  in  the  way  to  sal- 
vation.    All  who  know  the  Rev.  Author  have  reason 
to  rejoice,  that  a  man  of  such  abilities  and  erudition, 
Should  thus  declare  himself  the   patron  of  genuine 
Catholicity.     The  Chaplain  has  peculiar  reasons  for 
joining  in  the  general  congratulation  :  and  most  de- 
voutly wishes,  that  the   liberality  of  this   sentiment, 
Unqualified  by  any  restrictions,  may  find  its  way  into 
the  minds  of  the  Rev.  Gentleman's  brethren.  Should 
this  fortunately  be  the  case,  certain  congregations  will 
be  no  longer  amused  with  compliments  upon  the  ex- 

*  From  p.  11  to  p.  23.  t  Letter,  p.  12. 

t  Addres«,  p.  11. 


11 

elusive  soundness  of  their  faith,  nor  Protestants  pro- 
voked by  menacing  declamations,  much  more  calcu- 
lated to  disturb  the  peace  and  harmony  subsisting  in  these 
United  States   between   religionists  of  all  professions,* 
than   the  Chaplain's   recital,  or  even   reprobation  of 
tenets,  which  it  appears  are   about  to  take   leave  of 
America.     It  is  to  be  hoped  that,  among  others,  the 
doctrine  of  there  being  no  salvation  out  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  communion,  will  soon  depart  from  this   conti- 
nent, as  so  eminent  a  divine  has  already  discarded  it 
from  his  creed. 

The  Rev.  Gentleman  begins  this  article  by  observ- 
ing, that  to  be  in  the  communion  of  the  Catholic  church, 
and  to  be  a  member  of  the  Catholic  church,  are  two  very 
different  things.f  But  surely  this  inference  does  not 
follow  from  the  distinction — "  Therefore  a  man  may 
be  a  member  of  the  Roman  Catholic  church  without 
being  in  her  communion."  To  make  this  conclusion 
good,  the  Rev.  Gentleman  must  first  prove,  that  the 
Roman  and  Catholic  church  are  synonymous  terms,J 
which  the  Chaplain  humbly  conceives  would  require 
a  longer  essay  than  the  address  itself.  Every  Pro- 
testant divine  is  ready  to  acknowledge,  that,  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  Providence,  no  salvation  can  be 
obtained  out  of  the  Catholic  church.  The  Rev. 
Gentleman  would  persuade  us,  that  the  sentiment  of 
his  church  goes  no  farther  than  this,  and  he  instan- 
ces the  words  of  Pope  Pius's  creed  to  prove  it.§  A 
reference  peculiarly  fortunate  for  the  Chaplain!  For, 

*  Address,  p.  11.  t  Address,  p.  11. 

\  Albertus  Plgliius,  a  celebrated  canonist,  was  clearly  of  a  different  opinion 
— "  Quis  per  Romanam  eerlesiam  unquam  intellcxit  aut  universalcm  e.cctesiam^ 
aut  generate  consilium.™    Pigh.  Ecctes.  Hitrar.  lib.  6.  cap.  3. 

*  Address,  p.  12. 


12 

if  the  words  of  that  creed  do  not  manifestly  require 
communion  with  the  Roman  church  as  essential  to 
salvation,  he  will  relinquish  every  claim  either  to 
accuracy  or  candour.  Wherefore,  to  obviate  any 
unfair  accusation  in  future,  of  Siting  from  memory,  or 
neglecting  to  examine  a  faithful  transcript  of  it,  he  will 
set  before  the  reader  a  few  concluding  articles  of  this 
famous  creed,  literally  translated    from  the    original 

Latin "  I  do  embrace   and  receive  all   and  every 

thing  that  has  been  defined  and  declared  by  the  holy 
synod  of  Trent,  concerning  original  sin  and  justifica- 
tion— I  do,  in  like  manner,  profess  that  in  the  mass 
there  is  offered  a  true,  proper,  and  propitiatory  sacri- 
fice for  the  living  and  the  dead ;  and  that  in  the 
most  holy  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist  there  is  truly, 
really,  and  substantially  the  body  and  blood,  together 
with  the  soul  and  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ; 
and  that  there  is  a  conversion  made  of  the  whole  sub- 
stance of  the  bread  into  the  body,  and  of  the  whole 
substance  of  the  wine  into  the  blood,  which  conver- 
sion the  Catholic  church  calls  transubstantiation — I 
confess  also,  that  under  one  kind  only,  Christ,  whole 
and  entire,  and  a  true  sacrament,  is  received — I  do 
firmly  hold,  that  there  is  a  purgatory,  and  that  the 
souls  there  detained  are  relieved  by  the  suffrages  of 
the  faithful — And,  in  like  manner,  that  the  saints 
reigning  together  with  Christ,  are  to  be  worshipped 
and  invocated  ;  and  that  they  do  offer  prayers  unto 
God  for  us ;  and  that  their  relics  are  to  be  worship- 
ped— I  do  most  firmly  assert,  that  the  images  of 
Christ,  and  of  the  ever  Virgin  mother  of  God,  and  of 
the  other  saints,  ought  to  be  had  and  retained,  and 
that  due  honour  and    worship   ought   to  be  given  to 


13 

them — Also,  I  do  affirm,  that  the  power  of  indulgen- 
ces was  left  by  Christ  in  the  church,  and  that  the  use 
of  them  is  most  wholesome  to  Christian  people — I 
acknowledge  the  holy  Catholic  and  apostolical  Ro- 
man church  to  be  the  mother  and  mistress  of  all 
churches ;  and  I  do  promise  and  swear  true  obedi- 
ence to  the  Roman  pontiff,  the  successor  of  St.  Peter, 
prince  of  the  apostles,  and  vicar  of  Jesus  Christ,  &c. 
This  true  Catholic  fciWJkvitkaut  which  no  man  can  be 
saved,  which  at  this  time  I  freely  profess,  and  truly 
hold,  I  will  take  care,  as  much  as  shall  lie  in  me, 
(with  God's  help,)  constantly  to  keep  whole  and  in- 
violate, and  to  confess  the  same  unto  the  last  breath 
of  my  life ;  and  that  it  be  taught,  held,  and  preached 
by  those  under  my  power,  or  of  whom  the  care  shall 
belong  to  me  in  my  profession.  This  I,  the  said  N., 
do  promise,  vow,  and  swear,  so  help  me  God,  and 
these,  God's  holy  gospels." 

Such  are  the  concluding  periods  of  Pope  Pius's 
creed.  Can  the  reader  peruse  them  without  won- 
dering at  the  acrimonious  censure  thrown  out  by  the 
Rev.  Gentleman,  that  "  the  Chaplain  labours  to  fix 
on  Roman  Catholics  this  obnoxious  tenet  with  a  per- 
severance which  carries  with  it  an  air  of  animosity  ?"* 
The  severity  of  the  remark  is  freely  forgiven,  but 
surely  its  imprudence  cannot  be  concealed.  This 
true  Catholic  faith,  without  which  no  man  can  be  saved — 
Mark  the  word  this.  Can  its  meaning  possibly  admit 
of  a  doubt  ?  Is  it  not,  that  no  man  can  be  saved, 
who  has  not  this  faith  ?  No  man,  therefore,  can  be 
saved,  who  does  not  believe  the  doctrine  of  transub- 

*  Address,  p.  21. 


14 

stantiation,  and  of  purgatory.     No  man  can  be  saved, 
who  does  not  acknowledge  the  Roman  church  to  be 
"the  mother  and  mistress  of  all  churches."     Nomanl 
can  be  saved  who    believes  not  these  articles,  says  the| 
Pope  :  They  who  protest  against  them  may  be  saved,  says' 
the  Rev.  Gentleman.     Was  it  prudent  to  provoke  a  \ 
reference  to  this  creed,  when  the  meaning  of  it  is  too 
clear  and   evident  to  admit    of  any  palliative,  either 
from  the  subtlety  of  scholasljfc  quibbles,  or  from  libe- 
rality struggling  against  the  influence  of  prejudice  ? 

The  Chaplain,  therefore,  was  authorized  to  ad- 
vance,* upon  the  authority  of  this  creed,  that  neither 
transubstantiation,  nor  the  infallibility  of  the  Roman 
church,  are  taught  more  explicitly  as  articles  of  faith, 
than  the  impossibility  of  being  saved  out  of  the  communion 
of  this  church.  He  is  justified,  moreover,  in  asserting, 
that  some  have  laboured  hard  to  palliate  the  severity  of 
this  unpopular  tenet,  and  that  others  have  rejected  it,  as  no 
article  of  their  creed.  "  But,"  says  the  Rev.  Gentleman, 
"  to  be  in  the  communion  of  the  Catholic  church,  and 
to  be  a  member  of  the  Catholic  church,  are  two  very 
distinct  things."t  The  Chaplain  will  not  lead  the 
reader  through  all  the  mazes  of  controversy,  to  con- 
sider the  propriety  of  this  distinction.  JSuffice  it  to 
ask,  if  these  in  reality  be  two  distinct  things,  viz.  To 
believe  the  doctrines  of  transubstaniiation,  of  purgatory,  of 
saint  worship,  &fc,  to  acknowledge  the  Roman  church  to 
be  the  mother  and  mistress  of  all  churches  ;  and  to  be  in 
the  communion  of  the  Roman  Catholic  church  ?  Are 
these  indeed  two  distinct  things  ?  Do  not  these  doc- 
trines discriminate  her  from  all  other  churches  ?   Can 

*  Letter,  p.  10.  t  Address,  p.  11. 


15 


a  man  promise,  vow,  and  swear  freely  to  profess  ami 
truly  to  hold  them  without  being  a  Roman  Catholic, 
and,  consequently,  (unless  under  actual  excommunica- 
tion,) without  being  in  communion  with  the  Roman 
Catholic  church  ?  Wherefore  it  is  evident,  that  to 
profess  the  faith  set  down  in  Pope  Pius's  creed,  and 
to  be  in  the  communion  of  the  Roman  church,  is  one 
and  the  same  thing ;  and  it  follows  of  course,  that,  if 
no  man  can  be  saved  without  this  faith,  no  man  can  be 
saved  ivithout  this  communion. 

The  accidental  salvation  which  the  Rev.  Gentle- 
man's authorities  allow  to  Protestants,  by  no  means 
.softens  the  harshness  of  the  tenet.  A  few  exceptions 
to  a  general  rule  serve  only  to  strengthen  it.  Not  but 
what  the  Chaplain  most  cordially  wishes,  that  such  ia 
reality  were  the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  church.  A  re- 
volution of  this  nature  would  be  peculiarly  fortunate  for 
him.  The  unmerited  coldness  and  illiberal  abuse,  which 
he  has  experienced  from  several  of  his  former  connex- 
ions, would  subsist  no  longer  towards  a  fellow  Catho- 
lic ;  nor  would  the  Rev.  Gentleman  himself  indulge 
in  distressful  feelings,  or  waste  his  pity  on  a  brother 
whom  he  may  regard  consistently  with  his  principles, 
and  ought  to  treat  as  a  member  of  the  Catholic  church. 
As  every  definition  of  heresy,  which  the  Rev.  Gentle- 
man alleges,  contains  an  explicit  apology  for  the 
Chaplain,  he  cannot  but  adopt  them  with  singular 
satisfaction.  Nay,  he  will  enforce  the  sentiment  by 
an  additional  passage  from  St.  Augustin,  which,  he 
knows,  excludes  him  in  a  special  manner  from  the 
guilt  of  this  crime.  "  In  my  opinion,"  says  he,  "  a 
heretic  is  a  person  who,  for  some  temporal  conve- 
nience, but  chiefly  for  the  sake  of  glory  and  prp-omi 


16 

nence,  broaches  new  and  false  opinions,  or  adopts 
them."* 

"  The  Chaplain  knows,"  says  the  Rev.  Gentleman, 
"  that  many  of  the  most  eminent  Protestant  writers 
have  asserted,  that  all  the  essentials  of  true  religion 
are  to  be  found  in  our  communion,  and  surely,  the 
possibility  of  obtaining  salvation  is  one  of  these  essen- 
tials."! But  what  follows  from  this  charitable  asser- 
tion of  some  Protestant  divines,  but  a  more  powerful 
claim  to  Christian  liberality,  which  they  only  have  a 
right  to  dispute,  who  expressly  allow  that  all  the  es- 
sentials of  true  religion  may  be  found  also  in  the  Protes- 
tant communion.  Do  the  passages  alleged  by  the  Rev. 
Gentleman  countenance  this  idea  ?|  On  the  contra- 
ry, do  they  not  all  manifestly  suppose,  that  every 
Protestant  is  in  reality  a  heretic,  however  his  sin- 
cerity and  ignorance  may  accidentally  excuse  him 
from  the  guilt  of  heresy  ?  But  the  Chaplain  will  sup- 
pose that  the  Rev.  Gentleman  allows  salvation  not  only 
to  the  simple  and  illiterate,  but  to  the  inquisitive  and 
learned  of  the  Protestant  communion.  Pie  will  sup- 
pose, with  the  illustrious  Bergier,  that  all  Protestants, 
who,  "with  sincerity,  or  through  inculpable  ignorance, 
remain  in  their  error,  are  really  children  of  the 
Catholic  church. "§  He  will  suppose,  moreover,  that 
this  sincerity,  this  inculpable  ignorance,  may  excuse  a 
Protestant  minister,  as  well  as  the  most  illiterate  of 
his  flock.     Now,  if  this  may  possibly  be  the  case ;  if 

*  Quandoquidem  hazretkus  est,  ut  mea  fert  opinio,  qui  alicujus  temporalis 
commodi,  et  maxime  gloria  principatiisque  sui  gratia,  fulsas  ac  novas  opinionts 
vel  gignit,  vel  sequitur.     Atig.  deutil.  credendi. 

t  Address,  p.  22. 

X  See  pages  17,  18,  19,  20. 

$  Address,  p.  17. 


11 

Protestants  of  all  degrees,  conditions,  and  capacities, 
may  be  children  of  the  Catholic  church,  does  not  the  spi- 
rit of  charity  command  us  to  consider,  and  the  law  of 
justice  to  treat  them  as  such  ?  Or,  if  they  receive 
not  this  treatment,  does  it  not  follow,  that  they  arc 
not  regarded  in  so  favourable  a  light  ?  Here  is  one 
of  those  cases,  in  which  the  conduct  of  a  Christian 
society,  is  the  best  comment  upon  the  spirit  and  na- 
ture of  its  belief.  To  conclude,  the  Rev.  Gentleman's 
reasoning  must  be  this :  "  that,  notwithstanding  the 
lofty  pretensions  of  the  Roman  church,*  the  decrees 

*  The  most  celebrated  divine  of  the  French  church,  and  its  most  eloquent 
champion,  thus  delivers  his  sentiments  on  the  spirit  of  toleration  belonging  to 
his  communion  :  "  Thus  we  clearly  see,  that  what  renders  this  church  so  odi- 
ous to  Protestants,  is  principally,  and  more  than  all  other  tenets,  her  holy  and 
inflexible  incompatibility,  (incompatibilite,')  if  I  may  so  speak.  It  is  because 
she  will  stand  alone,  because  she  conceives  herself  to  be  the  spouse,  a  title 
that  admits  of  no  division  ;  it  is,  because  she  cannot  suffer  her  doctrines  to  be 
questioned,  because  she  confides  in  the  promises  and  perpetual  assistance  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  For,  in  reality,  this  it  is,  that  renders  her  so  severe,  so  un~ 
sociable,  and,  consequently,  so  odious  to  all  sects  separated  from  her,  which, 
for  the  most  part,  desired  nothing  more  at  the  beginning,  than  to  be  tolerated 
by  her,  or  not  to  be  fulminated  by  her  anathemas.  But  her  holy  severity,  and 
the  holy  delicacy  of  her  sentiments,  forbade  such  indulgence,  or  rather  such 
weakness,  and  her  inflexibility,  which  makes  her  hated  by  schismatical  sects, 
renders  her  dear  and  venerable  to  the  children  of  God."     Bossuet,  sixiemt 

acerlissement  sur  les  lettres  de  M.  Jurieu,  page  302 Again,  p.   301, 

"  She  (the  Roman  church)  subscribes  to  the  holy  scripture  with  all  other 
Christians,  as  to  a  book  inspired  by  God,  and  dictated  immediately  by  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  she  is  only  excluded  from  this  pretended  society,  (of  tolera- 
ting Christians,)  because  she  is  and  ever  will  be  opposed  to  religious  indiffer- 
ence by  her  essential  constitutions ;  and,  in  one  word,  because,  as  M.  Jurieu 
says,  she  is  the  most  intolerant  of  all  Christian  societies."  How  will  any 
thing  soften  so  formal  a  confession,  but  the  silent  reformation  mentioned  by 
the  Chaplain?  Again,  at  the  end  of  the  2d  vol.  of  his  Avertissemens,  &c, 
among  other  heretics  he  reckons  the  advocates  for  religious  toleration,  and 
sets  this  down  as  one  of  their  doctrines,  u  They  maintain,  that  the  magistrate 
has  no  power  to  punish  heretics."  Here  is  a  short  specimen  of  that  flaming 
orthodoxy,  which  was  blended  with  all  the  refinements  of  gallantry  in  the 
motley  etiquette  of  Louis  the  Fourteenth's  court.  At  a  period  preceding  this, 
we  meet  with  the  following  sentiment  in  the  greatest  controvertist  of  the  Ro- 

3  . 


of  her  pontiffs,  the  decision  of  her  councils,  the  wri- 
tings of  her  champions,  and  the  execution  of  her 
anathemas,  it  is  still,  and  ever  was  the  opinion  of  all 
her  divines,  since  St.  Augustin,  that  they  who  protest 
against  her  doctrines  may  and  ought  to  be  considered 
as  true  children  of  the  Catholic  church."  If  the  old 
maxim  be  just,  that  He  proves  nothing  who  proves  too 
much,  the  reader  may  apply  it  in  the  present  instance. 
With  respect  to  the  Christian  charity,  which  Pro- 
testants entertain  for  Roman  Catholics,  the  Rev.  Gen- 
tleman's own  wrords  will  evince  how  superior  it  is  to 
that  of  their  opponents  :  "  You  Protestants,"  says  he, 
(p.  21.,)  "  allow  our  church  to  be  a  true  church. 
Your  universities  have  declared,  on  a  solemn  consul- 
tation, that  a  person  not  pretending  to  the  plea  of  in- 
vincible ignorance,  may  safely  leave  the  Protestant 
church,  and  become  a  member  of  ours,  because  it  is 
a  safe  way  to  salvation."  Was  the  Rev.  Gentleman 
aware  of  the  high  compliment  which  he  here  pays  to 
Protestant  moderation,  to  that  Christian  condescen- 
sion, which  the  reformed  churches  have  ever  mani- 
fested for  composing  the  differences  of  Christendom  ? 
They  know  nothing  of  that  sacred  and  inflexible  incom- 
patibility, of  that  holy  severity  and  delicacy,  so  highly  pre- 
plan church :  "  In  the  Catholic  church  many  are  bad,  but  of  the  heretics 
(speaking  of  Protestants)  not  one  is  good."  In  ecclesia  Catholica  sunt  pluri- 
<mi  mali,  ex  hmreticis  nullus  est  bonus.  Bellar.  lib.  4.  de  eccles.  milit.  cap.  13. 
Where  the  charitable  Cardinal  must  mean,  if  he  argue  logically,  that  no 
Protestant  is  good  in  that  Zm«,  in  which  many  Catholics  are  bad,  that  is,  in  the 
line  of  morality.  As  to  the  decisions  of  the  popes  upon  this  head,  one  instance 
out  of  maDy  shall  suffice  :  M  We  declare,  say,  define,  and  pronounce  that  to 
every  human  creature  it  is  absolutely  necessary  for  salvation  to  be  subject 
to  the  Roman  pontiff."  Subesse  Romano  pontifici  omni  humana  creaturce 
declaramus.  dieimus,  defnimus  et  pronunciamus  omnino  esse  de  necessitate 
zalutis.  Bonifac.  viii.  in  extravag.  de  majoritate  et  obedientia  cap.  Unara 
sanctam. 


19 

conizedby  the  Bishop  of  Meaux  as  the  characteristics 
of  his  church;  which  we  are  told,  however,  (p.  12.,) 
says  no  more  on  this  head,  than  do  all  other  Christian  so- 
cieties. They  know  nothing  of  the  subtile  distinctions, 
the  impossible  suppositions,  which  are  held  out  as 
cloaks  for  an  uncharitable  tenet,  but  they  know  that 
charity  itself  is  the  soul  of  religion,  the  very  bond  of 
perfection  ;  they  know,  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  per- 
sons, but  that  in  every  nation,  he  that  fear  eth  him  andwork- 
eth  righteousness  is  accepted  ivith  him  ;  (Acts  x.  34,  35.) 
they  know,  that  faith  will  ever  authorize  concessions, 
which  charity  may  demand ;  they  know,  that  the  faith 
ought  to  be  kept  in  the  bond  of  peace  ;  they  know,  that 
all  who  maintain  the  common  principles  of  Christiani- 
ty, which  at  all  times,  and  in  all  places,  have  constituted 
the  creed  of  all  orthodox  believers,  and  who  walk  ac- 
cording to  this  rule,  neither  adding  to  this  faith,  tenets 
that  may  abolish,  nor  committing  immoralities,  that 
may  tarnish  it ;  they  know,  that  peace  shall  be  upon  them, 
and  mercy,  and  upon  the  Israel  of  God.  (Gal.  vi.  16.) 
These,  the  Chaplain  trusts,  are  the  sentiments  of  Pro- 
testants. When  the  Roman  pontiff,  his  councils,  his 
divines,  and  universities,  hold  a  similar  language ; 
when  "  they  shall  declare,  on  solemn  consultations, 
that  a  person,  not  pretending  to  the  plea  of  invincible 
ignorance,  may  safely  leave  the  Roman  church  and 
become  a  member  of  ours,  because  it  is  a  safe  way  to 
salvation  j"  then,  and  not  till  then,  can  they  aspire  to 
the  same  liberality  with  Protestants,  or  obtain  credit 
for  apologies,  which,  though  sincere  in  individuals, 
are  not  authorized  by  the  church,  for  which  they  are 
intended.  And  now,  perhaps,  the  reader  will  not  be 
at  a  loss  to  account  for  the  Chaplain's  fixing  this  tenet 


20 

on  the  Roman  church.*  At  any  rate,  let  him  compare 
the  grounds  of  this  charge  with  the  Rev.  Gentleman's 
reply,  and  if,  after  devesting  his  mind  of  prejudice,  he 
should  embrace  this  opinion,  the  Chaplain  will  still  be 
comforted  in  the  humiliation  of  his  defeat,  at  the  ac- 
cession of  liberal  fame  to  his  former  connexions. 

The  field  over  which  the  Chaplain  must  next  fol- 
low the  Rev.  Gentleman,  is  very  intricate  and  exten- 
sive. Through  forty-five  pages  of  his  address,t 
he  displays  all  his  powers  of  reasoning,  to  uphold  the 
system  of  infallibility  upon  the  ruins  of  the  few  argu- 
ments, which  appeared  to  the  Chaplain  sufficient  to 
overturn  it.  He  had  asserted,^  that  many  discrimina- 
ting doctrines  of  the  Roman  church  could  not  be  proved 
from  the  scriptures;  and  had  made  good  this  assertion 
from  the  concessions  of  several  Roman  Catholic  di- 
vines. He  therefore  concluded,  that  they  must  rest 
entirely  upon  the  infallibility  of  the  church  that  taught 
them.  He  then  proceeded  briefly  to  investigate  the 
claim  to  this  mighty  prerogative,  and  to  examine  it 
on  the  grounds  of  reason  and  revelation.  On  the 
same  foundations  will  he  now  erect  his  fortress  of  de- 
fence. 

The  Rev.  Gentleman  begins  by  observing,  that  if 
the  claim  1o  infallibility  be  found  to  rest  on  solid  and 
convincing  proofs,^  then  certainly  it  becomes  agreeable 
to  the  dictates  of  reason,  and  the  soundest  principles  of  mo- 
rality, to  assent  to  the  doctri?ies  proposed  by  this  infallible 
authority,  though  we  may  not  fully  comprehend  them. 
And  so  far  the  Chaplain  will  surely  agree  with  him. 
But  does  it  follow  from  this  argument,  that  the  collier's 

*  Address,  p.  20.  t  From  p.  22.  to  67. 

t  Letter,  p.  19,  20,  21.  *  Address,  p.  23. 


si 

profession  of  faith,  mentioned  by  Bellarmine,  could  be 
rational,*  who  is  not  supposed  to  have  examined  on 
what  grounds  this  claim  to  infallibility  is  established,  or 
to  have  had  abilities  to  discover  that  it  r€sts  on  solid 
and  convincing  proof s  ?  Without  knowing  probably, 
what  either  himself,  or  the  church  believed,  he  satis- 
fied his  mind,  and  secured  his  orthodoxy,  by  a  vague 
profession  of  believing  what  the  church  believed,  upon 
every  subject.^  The  Chaplain  is  still  of  opinion,  that 
to  plead  the  merit  and  efficacy  of  this  answer  to  every 
religious  difficulty,  is  to  offer  an  insult  to  reason  ;  and 
the  Rev.  Gentleman  must  think  so  likewise,  or  he 
would  hardly  have  exhorted  his  friends  to  examine  the 
grounds  of  their  religion  over  and  over  again.  (Add. 
p.  6.)  The  Rev.  Gentleman  asks  the  Chaplain,  if  it 
be  weakness  and  credulity  to  submit  to  divine  authority, 
although  ivedo  not  fully  comprehend  the  doctrines  it  deli- 
vers ?\  The  Chaplain  will  demand,  in  his  turn,  where 
he  even  hints  at  the  sentiment,  which  that  question  in- 
sinuates ?  Does  he  not  declare  repeatedly,  that  his 
belief  is  the  apostles'  creed ;  the  bible  his  religion  ? 
How  then  can  he  refuse  his  assent  to  the  mysteries 
enumerated  by  the  Rev.  Gentleman,  which,  his  reason 
tells  him,  are  delivered  in  them  both  ?  The  fact  is, 
the  Rev.  Gentleman  takes  the  proofs  of  infallibility  for 
granted,  and  then  arraigns  the  Chaplain  for  dissent- 
ing from  its  decrees.  He  adds,  moreover,  that  the 
Chaplain's  arguments,  drawn  from  reason,  (p.  23,  24, 
25.,)  must  furnish  powerful  arms  to  the  Deist,  the  Ari- 

*  Address,  p.  24. 

1  This  ridiculous  story  of  the  collier  and  his  faith,  is  seriously  related  by  Bel- 
larmine, dt  arte  bevf,  mmitndiy  lib,  2.  can-  P  from  Petrr  Harorlii'i?.  Bishop  c' 
Padua. 

t  P.  54, 


22 

an,  and  the  Socinian.*  But,  the  obvious  application  of 
the  Chaplain's  mode  of  reasoning  to  the  Rev.  Gentle- 
man's own  principles,  shows  this  charge  to  be  ground- 
less. For  does  he  not  tell  usf  that  "  the  only  ra- 
tional method  we  can  pursue,  in  establishing  a  con- 
tested doctrine,  is  to  show,  that  it  is  proposed  to  our 
belief  by  an  infallible  authority?"  Now,  how  does 
the  Chaplain's  reasoning,  when  applied  to  this  princi- 
ple, countenance  the  Deist,  the  Arian,  and  the  Socini- 
an ?  Will  the  following  mode  of  arguing  be  admitted  ? 
"  Reason  and  religion  can  never  be  at  variance  }\ 
therefore,  we  must  adopt  the  principles  of  a  Deist  or 
an  Arian.  The  most  rational  religion  must  always 
be  the  best ;  therefore,  we  must  deny  the  infallibility 
of  scripture.  The  language  of  reason  was  never  yet 
rejected  with  impunity  ;  therefore,  we  must  deny  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity."  'How  would  the  enemies  of 
revelation  triumph  at  concessions  of  this  nature  ?  Is 
it  prudent,  in  any  matter,  entirely  to  relinquish  the 
field  of  reason  to  an  adversary  ?  Again — Will  the 
Rev.  Gentleman  be  ever  able  to  persuade  a  reasona- 
ble man,  that  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  for  instance, 
and  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  present  the  same 
difficulties  to  his  senses  and1  understanding  ?  What 
have  the  senses  to  do  with  the  Godhead?  Or  can  the 
understanding  presume  to  point  at  contradictions,  in 
an  object  wrapt  up  in  mystery  unsearchable,  and  ly- 
ing infinitely  beyond  the  weak  faculties  of  man?  But, 
with  transubstantiation,  the  case  is  quite  otherwise: 
Here  is  a  matter  that  admits  of  experiment,  upon 
which  our  reason  can  argue,  and  our  senses  can  pro- 

*  Address,  p.  26.  t  Ibid.  %  Letter,  p.  25. 


23 

nounce.  The  two  former  must  be  respected,  when 
they  discover  gross  and  evident  contradictions,  and 
the  latter  attended  to,  when  they  decide  upon  quali- 
ties within  the  range  of  their  essential  faculties. 
Bread  must  be  bread,  while  all  its  natural  and  dis- 
criminating properties  are  perceived  by  the  senses, 
or  there  is  an  end  of  this  source  of  information  and 
judgment.  "  That  which  you  saw,"  says  St.  Augustin, 
"  is  the  bread  and  the  cup :  which  your  very  eyes  de- 
clare unto  you."*  This  material  difference  being 
settled,  well  might  the  Chaplain  disclaim  an  infallible 
church  authority  for  certain  tenets,  which  reason  and 
experience  tells  him  are  incredible  and  groundless  ; 
and  yet  admit  an  infallible  scripture  authority,  which, 
however  it  may  challenge  our  assent  to  inscrutable 
mysteries,  yet  offers  no  violence  to  our  senses  and 
understanding.  And  now,  the  "  Chaplain,  or  any 
other  Protestant,  can  tell  the  Rev.  Gentleman,  why  a 
Bolingbroke,  or  a  Hume,  had  not  as  good  a  right  to 
use  the  argument  mentioned  at  page  23,  against  the 
general  doctrines  of  Christianity,  as  he  had  to  urge  it 
against  the  Roman  church."  The  reason  is,  because 
he  and  they,  after  discussing  every  claim  to  infalli- 
bility, conclude,  that  this  prerogative  belongs  not  to 
mortals,  but  to  the  word  of  God  only,  delivered  in 
the  scriptures. 

But  the  Rev.  Gentleman's  scattered  arguments  on 
this  head  beginning  now  to  converge  to  a  point,  it 
will  be  less  difficult  to  seize  their  meaning,  and 
methodize  their  discussion. 

*  Quod  ergo  vidistix,  pan  is  esl  el  calix  :  quod  vobis  etiam  oculi  vestri  dervunci- 
ant  Aug.  in  serin,  de  sacram.  apud  Bedam,  in  1  Cor.  10.  et  Retmm.  de  corp. 
et  sang,  dominj.  vel  in  serm.  de  verb.  dom.  utcitalur  ab  Algero  lib.  1.  desacr. 
cap.  5. 


'24 

He  first  endeavours  to  uphold  the  system  of  infalli- 
bility upon  the  scriptural  passages  examined  by  the 
Chaplain.  He  then  proceeds  to  throw  out  some  ad- 
ditional proofs  for  its  reality,  and  concludes  by  striv- 
ing to  vindicate  the  Roman  church,  from  the  imputa- 
tion of  variety  or  novelty  in  her  tenets,  on  which  the 
Chaplain  had  grounded  his  last  short  argument 
against  her  infallibility.  Throughout  the  whole  of 
this  controversy,  he  frequently  repeats  his  former  in- 
sinuations of  a  want  of  candour  and  accuracy  in  the 
Chaplain. 

The  Rev.  Gentleman  appears  displeased,*  that  the 
Chaplain  should  say,f  that  few  scriptural  texts  seem  to 
countenance  infallibility;  and  that  he  should  insinuate, 
he  was  at  any  time  discouraged  from  examining  them. 
Why  he  once  refused  to  do  so,  the  Chaplain  trusts, 
he  has  not  now  to  explain.  The  reader  will  recollect, 
whether  the  kind  of  examination  formerly  allowed 
him  is  deserving  of  the  name.  That  few  scriptural 
texts  make  for  infallibility,  he  shall  still  take  the  li- 
berty to  think,  notwithstanding  the  thirty  enumerated 
by  Father  Mumfort,  whose  work  he  has  read  with- 
out discovering  him,  in  any  line,  an  adversary  worthy 
of  his  Chillingworth,  or  his  Usher.  The  truth  is,  the 
Catholic  Scripturist,  like  many  others,  has  an  admira- 
ble facility  at  finding  whatever  he  wishes  for  in  the 
scriptures.  He  knew  the  great  advantage  in  not  being 
over  delicate  in  the  choice  of  texts,  and  that  it  is  no 
difficult  matter  to  impose  them  upon  people,  who 
value  them  more  for  their  number  than  their  weight. 

*  Address,  p.  28.  +  Letter,  p.  27. 


25 


The  Rev.  Gentleman  begins  by  telling  us,*  that, 
"  among  other  proofs  of  her  infallibility,  the  Catholic 
church  alleges  these  words  of  Christ  to  St.  Peter.f 
Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my  church, 
and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it."  Re- 
garding this  text  in  a  very  important  light,  he  accord- 
ingly bestows  upon  it  eight  pages  of  his  address,  and 
enforces  it  with  all  the  ingenuity,  of  which  he  is  mas- 
ter. The  Chaplain  will  attend  him  over  as  much  of 
this  ground,  as  may  be  necessary  to  illustrate  the  few 
lines  of  his  letter  which  refer  to  this  passage. 

Without  citing  any  authority  for  a  position,  which 
he  took  for  granted,  and  knew  to  be  certain,  he  just 
mentioned,  en  passant,  that  the  Greek  word  Hades 
ought  rather  to  be  translated  Death  than  Hell.  At 
the  bottom  of  the  page,  however,  he  adopts  both 
meanings  of  this  controverted  word,  and  yet  with  all 
this  precaution  could  not  entirely  escape  the  Rev. 
Gentleman's  censure.  But  it  is  fortunately  in  his 
power  to  produce  so  many  authorities  to  support  his 
accuracy  in  this  instance,  that  were  he  inclined  to  in- 
dulge in  a  parade  of  erudition,  he  could  swell  his  an- 
swer, on  this  subject  only,  to  a  bulk  superior  to  the  Rev. 
Gentleman's  address.  He  will  just  set  down  a  few 
passages,  which,  he  trusts,  will  carry  conviction  to 
the  reader:  observing  first,  that  by  death,  he  meant 
rather  the  permanent,  than  actual  separation  between 
the  body  and  soul — a  state  of  extinction,  or  a  cessa- 
tion of  life.  Now,  in  this  sense,  the  word  Hades  is 
perpetually  used  by  the  ancients.  The  Greek  poets 
apply  it  to  death,  as  frequently  as  Thanatos.%    Sopho- 

*  Address,  p.  29.  t  Matth.  xvi.  18. 

X  See  Pindar.  Olymp.  Ode  8,  &c.  &c. 

4 


26 

cles,  in  the  beginning  of  his  Trachiniai,  puts  this  senti- 
ment in  Dejanira's  mouth;  "  that  although  it  were  an 
old  man's  saying,  that  happiness  or  wo  cannot 
be  known  before  death,  yet  she  knew  her  own 
life  to  be  unfortunate  s*g» ««  *<r*  yoxuv ;  before  she  ivent  to 
Hades ;"  these  last  words  are  explained  by  the  an- 
cient scholiast  by  *•§<>  3-*v*ts  before  death.  The  same  po- 
et, in  his  jijax,  says  ;  that  "  He  is  better  who  lies  in 
Hades,  than  he  who  is  afflicted  with  a  mortal  disease." 
Here  also  the  scholiast  expounds  lying  in  Hades,  by 
the  word  ^a-™*^,  or  being  dead.  Innumerable  passages 
from  the  ancient  Greek  writers,  of  a  similar  import, 
must  be  omitted,  to  insist  upon  others  of  still  greater 
weight.  What  will  be  objected  to  the  authority  of 
the  Vulgate,  or  the  Latin  translation  of  the  bible  ap- 
proved of,  and  ordered  to  be  used  by  the  council  of 
Trent?  Kttrxytn  t«  ttvko.^  'aS-is  Ken  niAyut  "thou  leadest  to 
the  gates  of  hell,  and  bringest  back  again."*  Now, 
how  is  Hadou  rendered  by  the  Vulgate  ?  Is  it  not 
by  the  Latin  word  mortis,  or  of  death  ?  Deducis  ad 
portas  mortis  et  reducis?  It  is  written,  (Proverb,  xiv. 
12.  and  xvi.  25.)  "  There  is  a  way,  which  seemeth 
right  unto  a  man,  but  the  end  thereof  are  the  ways 
of  death."  The  Seventy  Interpreters,  in  both  these  pla- 
ces, use  Hades  for  death.  So  in  Hos.  (xiii.  14.)  where 
the  Hebrew  and  Greek  both  read  "  I  will  deliver 
them  from  the  hand  of  Hades,''1  the  Latin  Vulgate  has 
"  de  manu  mortis  liberabo  eos,"  that  is,  from  the  "  hand 
of  death  ;"  which  Cyril  of  Alexandria  tells  us,  is  in 
reality  the  same  thing.  "  He  has  redeemed  us,"  says 
this  Father,  "  from  the  hand  of  hell,  that  is,  from  the 
power  of  death."^   "  The  dissolution  of  the  soul  from 

*  Wisd.  xvi.  13.  t  Cyr.  inlloseam.  p.  371. 


27 

ilie  body,"  says  St.  Ghrysostom, "  is  not  only  called 
death,  but  Hades  also.  For  listen  to  the  patriarch 
Jacob  saying,  Ye  will  bring  my  old  age  with  sorrow  to 
Hades.  (Gen.  xlii.  38.)  And  the  prophet  again;  Ha- 
des has  opened  its  mouth.  (Isai.  v.  14.)  And  in  many 
places  will  you  find  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  in  our 
translation  we  call  death  Hades.'1''*  The  learned  Eu- 
sebius,  on  the  very  text  that  gave  rise  to  this  digres- 
sion, writes  expressly,  as  follows ;  "  That  the  church 
doth  not  yield  to  the  gates  of  death,  *n^*/c  3-*v*tou  on  ac- 
count of  that  one  saying,  which  Christ  did  utter,  Upon 
this  rock  will  I  build  my  church,  and  the  gates  of  Hades 
shall  not  prevail  against  eV."t  St.  Ambrose  concludes 
also  from  the  same  text,  "  That  faith  is  the  founda- 
tion of  the  church  :  for  it  was  not  said  of  Peters  flesh, 
but  of  his  faith,  that  the  gates  of  death  should  not  pre- 
vail against  it."|  The  reader,  no  doubt,  is  convinced 
by  this  time,  and  so,  perhaps,  is  the  Rev.  Gentleman 
also,  that  in  this  matter  the  Chaplain  did  not  "  trust 
to  his  private  interpretation  of  scripture,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  general  sense  and  understanding  of  the 
church  in  all  ages,"  or  borrow  hit  ideas  from  the  sug- 
gestions of  Besa.§  Let  the  Rev.  Gentleman  only 
confess,  that  he  was  somewhat  off  his  guard  in  this 
hasty  accusation,  and  it  will  be  thought  of  no  more. 
The  meaning  then  of  the  text  is,  that  the  gates  or 
powers  of  hell,  or  rather  of  death,  will  never  prevail 
against  the  Christian  church. 

*  Chrys.  Serm.  2.  in  Pascha.  torn.  5.  edit.  SaviJ.  pag.  587. 

t  Euseb.  lib.  1.  praeparat.  Evang.  pag.  7. 

%  Fides  ergo  est  ecclesia?  firmamentum :  non  enim  de  carne  Petri,  sed  de 
fide  dictum  est,  quia  porta:  mortk  non  ei  prevalebunt.  Ambr.  ie  Incarnat. 
sacram.  cap.  5. 

$  Addrcs?,  p.  29. 


28 

The  Chaplain  had  expressed,  and  expresses  again, 
his  assent  to  this  truth ;  and  concludes  from  it,  that 
perpetuity  is  annexed  to  the  Christian  church.  For 
if  she  shall  never  be  reduced  by  Hades,  that  is  by 
death,  to  a  state  of  extinction,  she  must  of  consequence 
be  perpetual  and  immortal.  Whereas,  if  Hades  in  the 
text  be  taken  for  Hell  only,  this  limitation  will  ex- 
clude the  idea  of  perpetuity  and  infallibility  also.  For, 
admitting  that  the  infernal  powers  should  not  prevail 
in  abolishing  the  Christian  church,  does  it  follow, 
that  no  other  powers  shall  succeed  in  their  attempts 
against  her  ?  Let  us  suppose,  that  the  eloquence  of 
Pagan  philosophy,  the  allurements  of  human  pas- 
sions, or  the  flames  of  persecution,  had  proved  sub- 
versive of  the  Christian  name.  In  this  case,  the 
church  would  have  failed,  without  the  powers  of  hell 
being  any  wise  concerned,  or  the  promise  oi  Christ 
being  called  in  question.  For  the  world,  the  flesh,  and 
the  devil  are  the  mortal  foes  to  religious  societies,  as 
well  as  to  the  several  individuals  who  compose  them. 
If  so,  how  does  the  text,  in  securing  the  church 
against  the  last,  necessarily  ensure  her  against  her 
two  former  enemies  ?  If  she  fail  principally  by  erring* 
may  not  tlje  world  and  the  flesh  contribute  as  effectu- 
ally to  her  downfall,  as  the  powers  of  hell  itself? 
Wherefore,  it  appears  certain,  that  perpetuity  only  is 
promised  in  the  text.  Nor  should  we  adopt  the  word 
hell,  does  it  countenance  any  other  prerogative  :  for, 
even  in  this  case,  the  only  meaning  we  can  gather  is, 
"  that  the  i  fernal  powers  shall  not  prevail  against, 
that  is,  ultimately  overcome,  and  enslave  the  church  j 

*  Address,  p.  30. 


23 

or  abolish  the  great  and  essential  tenets  expressed  in  the 
apostles''  creed."  The  Rev.  Gentleman  harshly  brands 
a  short  and  innocent  paraphrase  on  the  text  quite 
similar  to  this,  as  a  strong  instance  of  confident  asser- 
tion usurping  the  place  of  solid  argument*  But,  until 
he  shows  that  Christ's  church  can  subsist  without  his 
religion,f  or  that  he  did  not  foresee  that,  at  some  pe- 
riods of  time,  she  would  be  feeble  and  disordered,  the 
candid  reader  will  hardly  accede  to  this  censure. 

As  to  the  passages  which  he  adduces  from  the 
Question  of  Questions,  and  The  shortest  Way  to  end  Dis- 
putes about  Religion,  they  manifestly  rest  upon  these 
false  suppositions  :  that  the  Roman  church,  and  others 
in  communion  with  her,  was  the  only  visible  church 
when  she  proposed  points  of  faith,  which  Protestants 
deem  erroneous,  and  that  every  error,  in  the  line  of 
religion,  utterly  destroys  the  church  that  teaches  it. 
Now,  both  these  positions  appear  to  be  groundless  : 
First,  because  whenever  these  points  of  faith  were 
publicly  held  out  as  terms  of  communion  by  the  Roman 
church,  they  were  rejected  by  other  societies  of 
Christians,  who  were  equally  branches  of  the  Catho- 
lic church.  This  was  the  case  at  the  several  periods, 
when  image-worship,  purgatory,  transubstantiation, 
&c.  were  added  to  the  list  of  original  tenets.  Second- 
ly, because  the  church  is  not  destroyed  by  every 
religious  error,  but  by  such  only  as  are  fundamental 
Wherefore,  until  an  error  pervades  every  Christian 
society,  which  is  directly  levelled  at  some  article  of 
the  apostles'  or  the  Roman  creed,|  the  common  prin- 

*  Address,  p.  31.  t  See  the  passage,  Address,  p.  32. 

X  This  creed  is  the  same  with  that  which  is  repented  in  the  liturgy  of  the 
;hurch  of  England  at  th*  communion  serrW, 


30 

ciples  of  Christianity  must  remain  unshaken,  and  the 
professors  of  them  be  members  of  the  Catholic 
church.  Against  these  essential  tenets,  this  sole 
foundation,  the  powers  of  death,  or  of  hell,  are  never 
to  prevail.*  They  may  obscure,  and  weaken,  and 
shake  them,  by  the  superstructure  of  error,  and  by 
the  poisonous  exhalations  of  vice ;  but  they  shall 
never  prevail  against  them.  The  Rev.  Gentleman 
asks  (p.  33.)  "  if  the  gates  of  hell  do  not  prevail 
against  a  church  requiring  an  idolatrous  worship,  or 
teaching  those  mysteries  of  iniquity,  viz.  the  heresy  of 
persecution,  &c.  mentioned  in  the  Chaplain's  letter." 
(p.  11.)  The  answer  is,  that  as  the  whole  Catholic 
church  never  adopted  these  maxims,  the  question 
becomes  useless.  If,  however,  the  Roman  church  ap- 
pear guilty  on  this  head,  it  belongs  to  her  advocates 
to  clear  her  as  well  as  they  can. 

The  Chaplain  had  advanced,  (Let.  p.  28,  29.,)  that 
the  gates  of  death  or  of  hell  should  not  prevail  against  the 
essential  tenets  of  the  Christian  religion.  On  this  asser- 
tion the  Rev.  Gentleman  builds  a  long  catalogue  of 
ideal  absurdities.  But  surely  he  did  not  reflect  that,  if 
doctrines  take  place,  they  must  necessarily  have  ad- 
vocates ;  that  Christians  and  Christian  doctrines  must 


*  This  distinction  between  the  fundamental  articles  of  faith,  and  other  doc- 
trines, appears  very  conformable  to  the  notions  of  the  elegant  Melchior  Canus. 
His  words  are  these  :  u  Qunedam  sunt  Catholicre  veritates,  quae  ita  ad  fidem 
pertinent,  ut  his  sublatis,  fides  quoque  ipsa  tollatur.  Quas  nos  usu  frequenti 
non  solum  Catholicas,  sed  fidei  veritates  appellavimus.  Aliae  veritates  sunt 
ipsa;  Catholicas  etuniversales,  nempe  quas  universa  ecclesia  tenet,  quibus  licet 
eversis,  fides  quatitur,  sed  non  evertitur  tamen.  Atque  in  hujusmodi  verita- 
tum  contrariis  erroribus,  dixi  fidem  obscurari,  non  extingui  :  infirmari,  non 
perire  :  Has  ergo  nunquam  fidei  veritates  censui  vocandas,  quamvis  doctrina?^ 
Christiana;  veritates  sint."    Melch.  Can.  loc.  Theol.  lib.  12.  cap.  11. 


31 

stand  or  fall  together.  Perhaps,  when  he  comes  to 
consider  further,  that  the  Chaplain  borrowed,  nay, 
copied  this  interpretation  of  the  text  from  the  council 
of  Trent,  he  will  regret  having  amused  himself  and 
his  readers,  at  the  manifest  expense  of  this  infallible 
assembly.  The  words  are  these,  *The  Council 
"  has  thought  fit,  that  the  symbol  of  faith  which  the 
holy  Roman  church  uses,  as  that  principle,  in  which 
all  who  profess  the  faith  of  Christ  necessarily  agree ; 
and  the  firm  and  only  foundation  against  which  the  gates 
of  hell  shall  never  prevail,  should  be  expressed  in  the 
same  words,  in  which  it  is  read  in  all  the  churches." 
This  passage,  the  Chaplain  trusts,  secures  both  his 
candour  and  accuracy  so  far  in  this  matter,  as  to  ren- 
der any  further  vindication  of  either  extremely  super- 
fluous. The  Roman  Catholic  will  hardly  reject  an 
apology  so  pointedly  drawn  from  the  council  of  Trent. 
The  Rev.  Gentleman  proceeds  nextf  to  examine 
the  promises  of  Christ,  made  at  his  last  supper.  (John, 
xiv.  16.  &c.)  He  thinks  it  necessary  to  set  down  the 
text  more  fully;  to  which  the  Chaplain  can  have  no 
objection,  as  not  a  syllable  of  it  cpplies  to  infallibility. 
Let  the  reader  pronounce  upon  the  logic  of  these  in- 
ferences :  "  I  will  ask  my  Father  and  he  will  send 
you  another  Comforter  to  abide  with  you  for  ever :" 
(Ibid.)  therefore  the  Roman  church  is  infallible.  "  The 
Comforter,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he 
shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your 

*  Symbolum  fidei,  quo  S.  Ecclesia  Romana  utitur,  tanquam  principium 
illud,  in  quo  omnes,  qui  (idem  Christi  profitentur,  uecessario  conveoiunt,  ac 
Jirmamcntumjirmum  et  unicum,  contra  quod  porta;  inferni  nunquam  prevalc- 
bunt,  totideoi  verbis,  quibus  in  omnibus  ecclesiis  legitur,  exprhoendum  esse 
censuit.     (Concil.  Trid.  Sess.  3.) 

t  Address,  p.  37. 


32 

remembrance,  whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you:"  (v. 
26. :)  therefore  the  Roman  church  is  infallible.  "  I  have 
yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you :  but  you  cannot 
hear  them  now;  however,  when  the  Spirit  of  truth  is 
come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth :"  (Ibid.  xvi. 
1 3.:)  therefore  the  Roman  church  is  infallible.  The  ab- 
surdity of  these  conclusions  did  not  escape  the  Rev. 
Gentleman's  notice,  and  therefore  he  only  infers  from 
these  passages  "  the  perpetual  assistance  of  the  Di- 
vine Spirit,  teaching  and  leading  the  apostles  and  their 
successors,  that  is,  the  body  of  pastors,  into  all  truth 
necessary  and  relating  to  the  service  of  God  and  salva- 
tion of  man."*  As  the  Chaplain  had  expressed  this 
very  idea  in  his  letter,t  he  may  be  allowed  to  waive 
any  further  discussion  of  these  texts,  and  to  repeat  his 
hearty  accession  to  so  rational  a  comment. 

The  words  of  Christ,  recorded  in  St.  Matthew, 
(xxviii.  20.,)  "  Behold  I  am  with  you  always  even  unto 
the  end  of  the  world,"!  to  be  any  wise  conclusive 
for  the  cause  of  infallibility,  must  suppose  first,  that  by 
the  word  you  are  meant  the  doctors  and  teachers  of 
the  church  of  Rome,  and  they  only.  Now,  the  Rev. 
Gentleman  himself  disclaims  this  supposition ;  for  he 
says  expressly,^  that  "  they  must  be  the  successors  of 
the  apostles,  whose  line  of  succession  we  can  trace  to 
them.  This  done,  we  must  account  of  them  as  the 
ministers  of  Christ,  and  the  dispensers  of  the  myste- 
ries of  God,  (1  Cor.  iv.  1.)  from  whom  we  may  learn 
certainly  the  truth  of  the  gospel."  The  teachers 
therefore  of  the  Greek  and  Protestant  churches,  who 
can  trace  an  indisputable  succession  to  the  apostles,  must 

*  Address,  p.  39.  t  P.  29. 

%  Address,  p.  40.  *  P.  41. 


33 

have  as  just  a  claim  to  Christ's  promise,  as  the  teachers 
and  prelates  of  the  church  of  Rome.  Secondly,  These 
words  must  suppose,  that  Christ  will  be  with  the  suc- 
cessors of  the  apostles  not  only  to  keep  them  from  all 
damnable  and  destructive  errors,  but  absolutely  from  all 
erroneous  doctrines  whatever:  and  yet,  even  grant- 
ing all  this,  it  then  would  follow,  if  the  promise  be 
absolute,  that  not  only  the  whole  church  of  Rome, 
not  only  a  general  council,  not  the  Pope  alone,  but 
every  bishop,  every  priest,  every  person,  who  is  sent 
by  Christ  to  baptize  and  preach  the  gospel,  might 
claim  this  assistance  by  virtue  of  his  words,  and  conse- 
quently be  infallible.  "  Noiv,  in  this  case,'''  says  Mr. 
Chillingworth,  "  what  a  multitude  of  infallible  churches 
should  we  have  /"  "  But,"  says  the  Rev.  Gentleman:* 
"  All  truth,  in  matters  of  faith  and  salvation,  into  which 
the  Spirit  was  to  lead  them,  is  exclusive  of  all  error, 
in  the  same  line :"  and  therefore  it  follows,  doubtless, 
that  the  Spirit  can  never  lead  the  church  into  error. 
But  can  we  infer  likewise,  that  her  teachers  shall 
never  hold  out  any  tenets  for  truth,  besides  such  as 
the  Holy  Spirit  has  delivered?  Or,  in  other  words, 
that  they  shall  never  build  wood,  hay,  and  stubble  upon 
the  foundations  of  truth  ?  Does  not  the  heterodoxy 
of  popes,  bishops,  and  councils,  which  is  upon  record, 
demonstrate  that  this  may  possibly  be  the  case  ?  If 
a  person  be  led  into  every  geometrical  truth  relating 
to  trigonometry,  does  it  follow,  because  all  truth  in 
this  line  is  exclusive  of  all  error  in  the  same,  that  he 
shall  never  adopt  any  other  positions  that  may  con- 
fuse his  ideas  and  mislead  his  operations  ?     Had  our 


*  Address,  p.  42. 
5 


34 

Lord  assured  us,  that  the  successors  of  his  apostles 
should  never  depart  one  tittle  from  the  truths  of  re- 
ligion, nor  add  a  single  tenet  to  the  holy  simplicity  of 
his  doctrine  :  Had  he  told  us  that  the  Roman  pontiff, 
his  councils  and  his  pastors,  should  be  secured  from 
every  kind  of  error  in  the  line  of  religion,  had  he  or- 
dered us  in  all  our  doubts  and  difficulties  to  have  im- 
mediate recourse  to  the  Roman  church  only,  as  an  in- 
fallible tribunal ;  then,  indeed,  would  it  have  been 
rash  and  impious  to  withstand  her  decisions.  But  the 
ways  of  God  are  not  the  ways  of  men,  -and  it  would 
be  the  highest  presumption  to  expect,  that  his  wisdom 
should  ply  to  our  apparent  convenience.  Perhaps  a 
familiar  case  will  illustrate  this  whole  matter.  Let  . 
us  suppose  that  the  Almighty  had  promised  America, 
at  the  commencement  of  her  late  glorious  struggle, 
to  guide  her  into  all  freedom,  and  that  the  powers  of 
Great  Britain  should  not  prevail  against  her.  Could 
any  thing  more  be  inferred  from  this  promise,  than 
that  the  attempts  of  her  enemies  should  be  baffled  in 
the  end,  and  that  all  the  essential  branches  of  liberty 
should  be  hers  ?  Her  provinces  might  be  ravaged, 
her  inhabitants  distressed,  her  armies  defeated.  She 
might  at  times  stand  trembling  upon  the  brink  of  de- 
struction. But  her  enemies,  notwithstanding,  should  not 
ultimately  succeed.  She  should  still  retain  sufficient 
strength  to  preserve  her  freedom  from  the  exertions 
of  tyranny.  Even  this  freedom  itself  might  at  times 
be  impaired.  Its  principles  might  be  obscured  in  some 
State  of  the  union,  while  they  shone  with  their  origi- 
nal lustre  in  others.  Ignorant  or  designing  men 
might  build  wood,  hay,  and  stubble,  upon  the  fundamen- 
tal rights  of  election,  upon  trials  by  jury,  or  the  liber- 


3d 

ty  of  the  press.  But  would  these  abuses  falsify  the 
promises  of  the  Almighty  ?  Might  they  not  subsist 
for  a  time  without  abolishing  the  essentials  of  freedom, 
to  which  perpetuity  is  promised,  and  which  of  course 
would  remain  entire,  when  the  abuses,  that  obscured 
them,  lie  buried  in  oblivion  ? 

To  break  the  enchantment  of  the  magic  circle,  in 
which  the  Chaplain  conceives  the  advocates  for  infal- 
libility to  be  entangled,*  the  Rev.  Gentleman  shifts 
the  general  ground  of  the  argument,  and  endeavours 
to  rear  his  system  upon  other  foundations  than  what 
the  scriptures  supply.  "  The  Catholic  reader  has 
but  to  open  his  eyes,"  says  he,f  "  and  he  will  discover 
that  his  church  is  in  the  practice  of  determining  con- 
troversies of  faith,  by  the  concurrent  authority  of  the 
episcopal  body.  The  church,  even  from  the  apostles' 
time,  has  always  exercised  this  authority — which  the 
primitive  Christians  considered  as  definitive  and  in- 
fallible. Whoever  refused  submission  was  cast  from 
the  church  as  a  heathen  and  publican.  On  these 
grounds  will  the  Christian  be  induced  to  believe  her 
infallibility — To  exercise  such  a  right  (viz.  of  de- 
ciding and  excommunicating)  without  infallibility 
would  be  vain  and  nugatory :  therefore,  she  is  infalli- 
ble.'*-  Here,  in  his  own  words,  is  the  Rev.  Gentle 
man's  argument,  that  is  to  dissolve  the  charm  of  this 
formidable  circle.  It  appears  plausible  at  first  sight, 
but  when  urged  for  infallibility,  is  like  applying  the 
areas  of  several  small  circles  to  ascertain  the  square 
of  a  large  one.  In  other  words,  it  is  nothing  more 
than  solving  one  vicious  circle  by  introducing  another. 

*  Letter,  p.  2G.  t  Pages  45,  4fi. 


3b 

i 

For  it  is  only  in  supposition  that  this  infallibility  ex- 
ists, that  the  practice  of  the  church  can  be  alleged 
to  evince  it.  The  church  is  infallible,  therefore  she 
has  a  right  to  decide  upon  matters  of  faith :  She  has 
a  right  to  decide  upon  matters  of  faith,  therefore  she 
is  infallible.  Will  such  reasoning  be  deemed  sufficient 
to  i-p'iold  the  highest  privilege  ever  claimed  by  man- 
kind ?  The  fact  is,  in  every  well  regulated  society, 
some  supreme  court  of  judicature  must  necessarily  be 
established,  in  order  to  terminate  finally  contentions 
among  individuals,  which  otherwise  would  for  ever 
disturb  the  peace  of  the  community  :  but  are  such  tri- 
bunals on  this  account  to  be  deemed  infallible  ?  It  is 
true,  the  decisions  concerning  truth  do  not  bear  a 
strict  resemblance  to  those  which  regard  our  tempo- 
ral interests.  The  first  must  never  depart  an  iota 
from  the  apparent  light  of  reason  and  revelation.  The 
second  may  be  modified  as  the  common  good  requires. 
But  in  both  cases  the  manner  of  judging  is  the  same, 
and  in  both  cases  may  the  decisions  of  men  be  mis- 
taken. Accordingly,  we  often  see,  when  one  supreme 
tribunal  has  been  compelled  to  yield  to  an  adverse 
power,  its  decrees  have  been  reversed,  and  others 
enacted,  which  during  the  prevalence  of  their  authors 
are  as  binding  as  the  first.  This  was  the  case  du- 
ring the  famous  disputes  concerning  the  incarnation. 
For  two  hundred  years  the  same  opinions  were  suc- 
cessively approved  and  condemned,  as  their  abettors, 
or  adversaries,  got  the  upper  hand.  It  was,  there- 
fore, thought  necessary  to  recur  to  some  supreme 
authority,  in  order  to  prevent  disputes  from  becoming 
perpetual.  The  spirit  of  charity,  which  is  the  very 
essence  of  religion,  was  greatly  impaired  by  these 


37 

dreadful  quarrels,  and  it  was  judged  a  less  dangerous 
expedient  to  decide  definitively  upon  these  several 
questions,  than  to  suffer  Christians  to  tear  one  an- 
other to  pieces  in  the  fury  of  controversy.  But  this 
could  not  deprive  individuals  of  the  right  of  judging 
for  themselves  in  speculative  matters.  In  these  cases, 
reason  cannot  yield  to  human  authority  alone  ;  espe- 
cially when  it  is  known,  that  many  final  decisions 
have  been  discovered  at  last  disagreeing  with  truth. 
This  made  St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzum  declare,  "  that 
he  was  never  present  at  an  assembly  of  bishops, 
which  did  not  increase  the  evils  they  meant  to  reme- 
dy ;  the  spirit  of  dispute  and  ambition  always  pre- 
vailing over  the  dictates  of  reason."*  And  the  judi- 
cious Turretin  adds,t  "  that  if  any  man,  having  read 
the  acts  of  the  councils,  regard  them  as  infallible,  a 
physician  would  be  the  proper  person  to  undertake 
his  case." 

As  to  the  argument  drawn  from  the  right  and  prac- 
tice of  excommunicating,  what  force  can  it  have  with 
those  who  laugh  at  infallibility  ?  They  would  say,  no 
doubt,  that  this  also  is  running  round  a  circle;  be- 
cause the  church  not  being  infallible,  as  is  pretended, 
her  practice  on  this  head  is  rather  an  abuse  that 
ought  to  be  reformed,  than  a  law  of  obligation ;  that 
nothing  is  more  dangerous,  and  less  logical,  than  to 
argue  from  matter  of  fact  to  matter  of  right ;  because 
the  latter  must  first  be  established  before  the  former 
can  possibly  be  an  argument  for  its  justice.  Thus, 
when  several  popes  presumed  to  enforce  acts  of  ju- 

*  Carmen,  de  vita  sua. 

t  Qui  lecli*  conciliorum  actis  ea  pro  errare  nesciis  Uabucrit,  ad  medicos 
\blegandus  est.     Turret. 


38 

risdiction,  in  matters  merely  temporal, to  the  prejudice 
of  princes,  they  were  withstood  as  so  many  usurpa- 
tions,  and  abolished  as  tyrannical,  and  no  wise  com- 
petent to  prescribe  against  right.  It  is  therefore  a 
sign  of  a  weak  cause,  to  urge  the  practice  of  excom- 
munication as  a  proof  of  infallibility,  since  nothing  de- 
cisive can  follow  from  it :  for,  even  supposing  it  to  be 
just  and  warrantable,  infallibility  would  not  follow 
from  it  as  a  necessary  consequence.  Excommunication 
has  often  been  employed  upon  very  trifling  occasions, 
where  articles  of.  faith  were  no  wise  concerned. 
This  was  the  case  with  respect  to  the  celebration  of 
Easter,  the  repetition  of  baptism,  the  marriage  of  the 
clergy,  the  affair  of  the  three  chapters,  &c,  where 
each  excommunicating  party  could  not  surely  chal- 
lenge the  privilege  of  being  infallible.  This  act  of 
church  authority,  therefore,  when  properly  exercised, 
is  not  grounded  upon  infallibility,  but  solely  upon  the 
right,  which  all  communities  possess,  of  framing  laws 
and  regulations  for  their  own  well-being,  and  of  ex- 
cluding every  person  from  their  society,  who  refuses 
to  submit  to  its  essential  ordinances.  Particular 
churches  have  frequently  excommunicated  each  other, 
without  the  least  pretence  to  infallibility.  The  thun- 
der of  this  ecclesiastical  artillery  was  echoed  for  ages 
from  the  East  to  the  West,  although  the  contest  was 
chiefly  for  pre-eminence  and  power.  Nothing  then 
can  be  less  satisfactory,  than  the  argument  drawn 
from  the  practice  of  excommunication,  a  penalty  often 
inflicted  without  necessity  and  justice ;  frequently  at 
the  expense  of  reason  and  truth ;  and  consequently 
but  ill  calculated  to  uphold  the  highest  privilege  ever 
claimed  among  men. 


39 

The  Chaplain,  there  lb  re,  although  he  believes  the 
infallibility  of  scripture,  has  reason  to  insist  upon  this  I 
hackneyed    argument ;    for,    "  the    Roman    Catholic  | 
must  believe  his  church  infallible,  because  she  teach-  • 
es,  by  an  infallible  authority,  that  many  texts  of  scrip- 
ture prove  her  to  be  so."     Here  is  the  magic  round,  . 
in  which  the  advocates  for  this  system  must  continue 
to  move  until  delivered  by  reasons  yet  undiscovered. 

With  respect  to  the  other  hackneyed  argument  men- 
tioned by  the  Chaplain,*  the  Rev.  Gentleman  thinks 
it  "  really  matter  of  astonishment,  that  he  also  should 
insist  upon  it."t  The  reader  is  requested  to  turn  to 
the  note,  and  if  he  there  find  any  matter  of  astonish- 
ment, this  sentiment  must  be  easily  wakened  in  his 
mind.  Where  is  the  great  mistake  in  asserting,  "  that 
some  divines  place  infallibility  only  in  the  pope  and 
council  received  by  the  whole  church?"  Are  they 
not  negatively  distinguished,  by  this  opinion,  from 
those  who  plead  for  the  infallibility  of  the  pope 
alone,  or  in  conjunction  with  a  council  ?  The  Chap- 
lain never  meant  to  deny,  that  all  Roman  Catholics 
profess  to  believe  that  infallibility  resides  in  the  pope 
and  council  received  by  the  whole  church,  but  he 
maintains  that  they  who  make  it  consist  in  this  only 
must  differ  in  their  notions  upon  the  constituents  of 
this  prerogative  from  those  who  attribute  it  to  each 
separate  branch.  This  is  all  the  matter  of  astonish- 
ment, which  can  possibly  be  collected  from  the  Chap- 
lain's words.  He,  indeed,  has  ample  room  for  aston- 
ishment, when  he  hears  the  Rev.  Gentleman  denying 
it  to  be  the  doctrine  of  his  church,^  "  that  a  council 
can  decree  nothing  without  the  assent  of  the  pope ; 

•'*  Letter,  p.  26.  note.  t  Address,  p.  48.  %  Address,  p.  4?>. 


40 

that  he  alone  has  a  right  to  interpret  the  council,  and 
explain  its  decisions;  and  that  those  tenets  only  are  of 
faith,  which  he  determines  to  be  so."*  If  these  be  not 
the  doctrines  of  the  Roman  church,  the  Chaplain  has 
indeed  erased  from  his  memory,  among  other  learned 
lumber,  the  theological  principles  of  her  schools.'f  For 
he  will  declare  upon  his  honour,  that  he  thus  under- 
stood the  doctrines  on  this  head  delivered  in  the  lec- 
tures, which  he  attended  :  and  he  trusts,  his  honour, 
even  after  discarding  his  former  prejudices,  is  as  sacred  as 
theirs,  who  choose  still  to  uphold  them.  The  explicit  hint 
at  gross  ignorance,  or  wilful  misrepresentation,  thrown 
out  in  this  place,  makes  the  reader's  further  indul- 
gence necessary,  while  this  matter  is  cleared  up. 
Let  the  Rev.  Gentleman  inform  us  whether  a  council 
can  make  decrees  in  matters  of  faith,  without  the  assent 
of  the  pope.  If  so,  what  becomes  of  the  infallibility 
arising  from  their  mutual  agreement,  and  the  consent 
of  the  church  ?  If,  according  to  the  Rev.  Gentleman,! 
infallibility  reside  in  the  body  of  bishops  united  and  agree- 
ing with  their  head,  the  bishop  of  Rome,  how  can  a  coun- 
cil of  these  bishops  give  a  sanction  to  tenets,  to  which 
their  head  declares  his  dissent  ?  Will  any  Roman 
Catholic  school  allow  a  council  to  be  oecumenical,  or 
its  decrees  to  be  of  faith,  if  the  pope  do  not  preside 
personally,  or  by  his  legates,  and  confirm  its  decisions? 
The  Rev.  Gentleman  denies,  moreover,  that  the  pope 
alone  has  a  right  to  interpret  the  council,  and  that  such 
interpretations  only  are  of  faith  ;  the  bishops,  also,  says 
he,§  claim  a  divine  right  to  this  privilege.  But  let  him 
tell  us,  if  their  interpretations  be  of  faith.   If  so;  then 

*  Letter,  p.  26.  note.  t  Address,  p.  49. 

,%  Address,  p.  48.  4  Address,  p.  49. 


41 

is  every  bishopric  an  infallible  church  :  if  not ;  ther 
has  the  pope  only  a  right  to  pronounce  on  them  with 
definitive  authority.  Let  the  practice  of  the  Roman 
church  in  this  particular  illustrate  her  belief.  When- 
ever disputes  arose  among  Roman  Catholic  divines, 
or  universities,  was  not  the  sovereign  pontiff  always 
appealed  to,  to  settle  them  ?  Jn  the  fierce  and  fa- 
mous contests  de  auxiliis,  or  of  grace,  between  the 
Molinists  and  the  Thomists,  did  not  each  party  con- 
tinually appeal  to  the  pope?  And  had  he  judged  it 
prudent  to  decide  upon  the  matter,  would  not  a  re- 
jection of  his  decisions  have  been  deemed  heretical,  and 
treated  as  such  ?  Did  not  the  Jansenists  repeatedly 
allege  the  authority  of  the  Fathers  and  Councils  to  sup- 
port the  five  positions  of  the  Bishop  of  Ypres ;  and 
yet  the  Rev.  Gentleman  must  regard  them  as  hereti- 
cal, and  their  opposite  truths  to  be  of  faith,  since  the 
sentence  passed  on  them  by  the  Roman  see.*     Why 

*  The  inquisitive  reader  will  not  perhaps  be  displeased  with  a  short  account 
of  a  fanatical  system  of  divinity,  which  for  near  a  century  agitated  the  king 
dom  of  France.  It  called  forth  all  the  airy  humour,  all  the  powers  of  satire, 
all  the  profound  erudition  of  this  elegant  nation.  Princes  and  bishops,  friars 
and  poets,  divines  and  ladies,  eagerly  engaged  in  the  mighty  contest ;  while, 
to  an  impartial  bystander,  it  was  a  matter  of  doubt  whether  the  object  of 
contention  was  not  a  mere  fantome  at  last.  About  the  year  1630,  Corne- 
lius Jansenius  and  John  Verger,  commonly  called  Abbe  de  St.  Cyran,  con- 
tracted a  close  friendship,  and  concerted  a  new  plan  of  doctrine  concerning 
divine  grace,  founded  in  part  upon  the  opinions  of  Michael  Baius,  of  the 
university  of  Lovain.  This  system,  Jansenius,  by  his  friend's  advice,  en- 
deavoured to  establish  in  a  book,  which,  from  St.  Augustin,  he  entitled 
Augustinus.  After  being  bishop  of  Ypres  from  1635  to  1638,  he  died  of  the 
pestilence,  leaving  his  book  in  manuscript  only  ;  which,  however,  was  given 
to  the  public  after,  by  Fromondus,  a  learned  Lovanian  divine.  This  book 
of  Jansenius  was  condemned  by  Urban  VIII.  in  1641,  and  in  1658  Innocent 
X.  censured  five  propositions,  to  which  he  conceived  the  errors  of  this  work 
were  principally  reduced.  This  was  the  signal  for  the  combat,  and  hosts  of 
zealous  heroes  sprang  up  on  every  side.  "  The  principal  errors  contained 
in  the  doctrine  of  the   Jansenists,11  says  the   learned   Butler,  in  his  Life  of 

6 


42 

are  long  catalogues  of  propositions,  which  are  con- 
demned by  the  Pope,  inserted  in  all  books  of  casuistry, 
and  laid  down  as  so  many  acknowledged  errors  against 
faith  and  morals  ?  This  surely,  alone,  is  sufficient  to 
authorize  the  Chaplain's  assertion,  that  the  Pope  only 
has  a  right  to  interpret  councils  ;  in  order  to  determine 
ivhat  tenets  are  of  faith.  He  therefore,  alone,  must  be 
the  ultimate  depository  of  infallibility.  (Lett.  p.  26.) 
When  he  speaks  ex  cathedra,  as  it  is  called,  his  oracles 
must  command  submission  from  his  adherents  :  and 
yet  the  reader  may  possibly  mistake  the  meaning  of 
his  decrees,  full  as  readily  as  some  essential  passage 
of  the  Bible;  unless,  indeed,  with  infallibility,  the  gift 
of perspicuity  also  be  communicated  to  him  in  a  high- 
er degree  than  to  the  word  of  God.  As  to  the  maxims 
and  solemn  declarations  of  the  Gallican  clergy,  they 
must  first  be  proved  consistent,  before  they  can  have 
weight  It  was  a  just  remark  of  the  celebrated  Arch- 
bishop Wake,  that  "  the  English  prelates,  by  renoun- 
cing all  dependence  on  the  Roman  pontiff,  exhibited  a 
degree  of  consistency  and  candour  not  to  be  reconciled 

Vincent  of  Paul,  "  are,  that  God  sometimes  refuses,  even  to  the  just,  suf- 
ficient grace  to  comply  with  his  precepts ;  that  the  grace  which  God  affords 
man  since  the  fall  of  Adam,  is  such,  that  if  concupiscence  be  stronger^  it 
cannot  produce  its  effect ;  but  if  the  grace  be  more  powerful  or  victorious, 
by  a  necessitating  influence,  that  then  it  cannot  be  resisted,  rejected,  or  hin- 
dered :  and  that  Christ  by  his  death  paid,  indeed,  a  sufficient  price  for  the 
redemption  of  all  men,  and  offered  it  to  purchase  some  weak,  insufficient 
grace  for  reprobate  souls,  but  not  to  procure  them  means  truly  applicable, 
and  sufficient  for  their  salvation.  The  main  spring  or  hinge  of  this  system  is, 
that  the  grace,  which  inclines  man's  will  to  supernatural  virtue,  since  the 
fall  of  Adam,  consists  in  a  moral,  pleasurable  motion,  or  a  delectation  infu- 
sed into  the  soul,  inclining  her  to  virtue,  as  concupiscence  carries  her  to  vice  ; 
and  that  the  power  of  delectation,  whether  of  virtue  or  vice,  which  is  strongest, 
draws  the  will  by  an  inevitable  necessity,  as  it  were  by  its  own  weight."  To 
support,  explain,  modify,  reject,  and  impugn  such  absurdities  as  these,  an  en- 
lightened and  polished  nation  was  convulsed  for  near  a  century,  exhibiting  a 
most  contemptible  picture  to  every  thinking  man,  of  systems,  and  system  makers. 


43 

with  the  professions  and  conduct  of  the  Bishops  of 
France."     (Append,  to  Mosheim^s  Church  History.) 

The  Chaplain's  second  consideration  on  the  plea  to 
infallibility,  (Lett.  p.  29.)  which  was  meant  only  to 
evince  that  the  Roman  church  regards  some  doctrines  at 
present  as  articles  of  faith,  which  for  many  ages  were  de- 
bated as  matters  of  opinion,  is  not  fairly  stated  by  the 
Rev.  Gentleman.  It  is  there  said,  that  at  some  periods 
of  time  several  doctrines  were  defined  as  belonging  to  faith, 
which  at  others  were  debated  as  matters  of  opinion.  He 
instances  the  opinion  of  the  Millenarians  to  prove  this 
assertion.  Is  this  to  "  allege  that  the  church  formerly 
taught  doctrines  as  of  faiths  which  she  now  rejects  as 
contrary  to  faith  ?"  (Address,  p.  50.)  "  Because 
this  doctrine  was  maintained  as  an  article  of  universal 
belief,  or  of  Catholic  faith,  by  almost  every  father,  ivho 
lived  immediately  after  the  times  of  the  apostles,"  does  it 
follow  that  the  Catholic  church  defined  it  as  an  arti- 
cle of  communion  ?  For  some  ages  previous  to  the 
reformation,  we  do  not  meet  with  a  divine  of  any  emi- 
nence, except  Thomas  Aquinas,  who  was  not  a  zea- 
lous advocate  for  the  doctrine  of persecution;  and  yet 
the  Rev.  Gentleman  will  hardly  allow  it  to  be  an  ar- 
ticle of  Catholic  communion.  The  truth  is,  without 
the  intervention  of  any  solemn  decree,  the  doctrine  of 
a  millennium  was  an  article  of  Catholic  belief;  and, 
therefore,  if  the  church  fail  principally  by  erring, 
(Address,  p.  48.)  she  certainly  must  have  failed,  when 
nearly  all  her  teachers  were  involved  in  an  error, 
which  has  since  been  deemed  capital.  At  any  rate, 
the  Rev.  Gentleman  must  confess,  that  the  doctrine 
of  admission  to  happiness,  or  of  condemnation  to  punish- 


u 

ment  immediately  after  death,  is  now  defined  as  belong- 
ing to  faith,  which  was  formerly  debated  as  a  matter 
of  opinion,  and  rejected  by  almost  all  the  ancient  fa- 
thers. This  is  all  the  Chaplain  meant  to  advance  as 
the  ground  of  his  argument.  This  is  all,  that  either 
accuracy  or  candour  calls  upon  him  to  maintain.  It 
was  never  his  intention  to  investigate  the  merits  of 
auricular  confession,  of  purgatory,  transubstantiation, 
or  any  other  tenet  of  the  Roman  church.  He  merely 
advanced,  and  clearly  showed,  M  that  these  and  some 
other  doctrines  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  scriptures, 
and  that  at  some  periods  of  time  they  passed  for 
opinions  only."  Until  these  assertions  be  confuted, 
the  Chaplain  stands  acquitted  of  disingenuity  and 
mistake  ;  even  allowing  that  the  Rev.  Gentleman's 
arguments,  through  thirty-six  pages  of  his  address,* 
have  proved  satisfactory  in  establishing  these  doc- 
trines. Without  leading  the  reader  through  all  the 
beaten  paths  of  the  province  of  controversy,  which 
the  Rev.  Gentleman  travels  over  in  this  part  of  his 
address,  the  Chaplain  wishes  only  to  detain  him  at 
those  passages  which  are  intended  to  do  away  the 
above-mentioned  assertions. 

The  Rev.  Gentleman  begins  with  transubstantia- 
tion^ which  the  Chaplain  asserts  was  no  article  of 
faith  prior  to  the  council  of  Later  an,  in  121 5.+  Scotus, 
who  was  styled  the  subtile  doctor,  and  has  ever  been 
regarded  as  a  prodigy  among  the  schoolmen,  main- 
tains this  to  be  the  case.  But,  say  Bellarmine  and 
the  Rev.  Gentleman,  Scbtus  was  mistaken.  Although 
he  died  in  1308,  he  knew  nothing  of  the  councils  which 

*  From  p.  69.  to  105.  t  Address,  p,  69.  J  Letter,  p.  32. 


45 

established  this  doctrine,  and  yet  the  first  that  did  30, 
was  held  in  1060,  or  rather  1050,  under  Leo  IX. 
During  two  centuries  and  a  half,  the  opinion  of  Be- 
renger  was  echoed  through  Europe,  and  had  innu- 
merable adherents ;  yet  Scotus,  who  lived  at  the 
conclusion  of  this  period,  had  never  heard  of  the 
councils  that  condemned  him.  Will  the  impartial 
reader  acquiesce  in  improbabilities  like  these  ?  The 
Chaplain  goes  on,  M  It  was  towards  the  beginning  of 
the  ninth  century,  that  Paschasius  Radbertus  publish- 
ed his  treatise  upon  the  corporal  presence  of  Christ 
in  the  Eucharist,  and  as  Bellarmine  tells  us,  was  the 
first  who  wrote  seriously  and  copiously  concerning  it." 
(lb.)  The  words  of  the  learned  cardinal,  which  im- 
mediately follow  against  Bertram  the  Priest,  who  was 
among  the  first  that  called  it  in  question,  are  omitted  by 
the  Chaplain ;  and  this  omission  is  held  up  as  a  strik- 
ing instance  of  his  deficiency  in  point  of  accurate  and 
impartial  investigation.*  No  censure  in  the  Address 
surprised  him  more  than  this.  If  the  reader  have 
been  two  years  at  a  Latin  school,  let  him  construe 
fairly  the  following  sentence.  Hie  auctor  primus  fuit, 
qui  serio  et  copiose  scripsit  de  veritate  corporis  et  san~ 
guinis  domini  in  Eucharistid,  contra  Bertramurn  Presby- 
lerum,  qui  fuit  ex  primis,  qui  earn  in  dubium  revocarunt.'f 
Now,  if  he  can  make  out  from  this  sentence,  or  the 
latter  part  of  it,  that  Paschasius  was  only  the  first 
who  wrote  seriously  and  copiously  against  Bertram; 
and  not  the  first  who  wrote  seriously  and  copiously  con- 
cerning the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  in  the  Eucharist^ 
he  must  have  mispent  his  time  egregiously,  or  posses* 

*  Address,  p.  69. 

f  Bell,  de  Scrip.  F.ccl.  p.  266. 


4b 

a  happy  talent  at  distorting  the  obvious  meaning  of 
words.  But  another  learned  Jesuit  shall  clear  his 
brother  Bellarmine  from  obscurity  in  this  instance, 
and  the  Chaplain  from  the  censure  of  ignorance  or 
design.  These  are  the  words  of  Father  Sirmondus, 
in  his  life  of  Paschasius.  "  Genuinum  ecclesice  Catho- 
licce  sensum  ita  primus  explicuit,  ut  viam  cceteris  aperue- 
rit,  qui  de  eodem  argumento  multi  postca  scripsere.  "  He 
was  the  first,  who  explained  the  true  sense  of  the  Ca- 
tholic church  in  such  a  manner,  as  to  open  the  way 
to  many  others,  who  wrote  afterwards  on  the  same 
subject." 

But  to  proceed  :  "  Paschasius  himself  informs  us," 
says  the  Chaplain,  "  that  this  doctrine  was  by  no, 
means  universal  or  settled."*  The  Rev.  Gentleman 
styles  this  a  most  unfortunate  reference,  and  boldly  re- 
jects the  citation  itself.  The  Chaplain  has  not  by 
him  the  original  epistle  of  Paschasius  to  Frudegard, 
but  he  finds  his  words  cited  by  the  accurate  Usher,  in 
a  manner  that  admits  not  a  doubt  of  their  authenti- 
city, f  "  You  question  me,"  says  he,  "  upon  a  sub- 
ject, about  which  many  are  doubtful."  And  again, 
"  although  many  hence  be  doubtful,  how  he  remains 
entire,  and  this  can  be  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ." 
If  these  two  passages  be  genuine,  and  they  must  be 
so,  unless  Usher  foisted  them  into  the  letter,  it  fol- 
lows, that  Paschasius  is  guilty  of  a  palpable  contra- 
diction, or  in  the  heat  of  controversy,  as  is  often  the 
case,  compliments  his  own  particular  notions  as  Cat/to- 


*  Letter,  ibid. 

t  "  Quceris  tnim  de  re  cs  qua  multi  dubita?it."....Quamvis  multi  ex  hoc 
dubitent,  cjuomodo  Me  integer  manet,  et  hoc  corpus  Christi  el  sanguis  esse  possit. 
Pasch.  Epist.  ad  Frtid.  citat.  ab  Usher,  p.  77.     Answer  to  a  Challenge,  &c. 


47 

tie  truths,  or  that  the  words  quoted  by  Usher  arc 
omitted  in  the  edition  which  the  Rev.  Gentleman 
consulted.  The  plausibility  of  this  conjecture  will 
shortly  appear,  when  the  treatment  of  some  of  his 
cotemporary  writers  on  this  very  subject  comes  to  be 
mentioned. 

The  passage  quoted  by  the  Chaplain*  from  Raba- 
nus  Maurus,  in  his  letter  to  Heribald,  is  not  rejected 
by  the  Rev.  Gentleman,  "  because  he  has  not  this 
epistle,  nor  is  able  to  procure  it  ;t  he  suspects,  how- 
ever, that  it  is  copied  from  the  Huguenot  Albertinus, 
whose  mistakes  have  a  great  affinity  with  those  of  the 
Chaplain."  But  this  very  passage  shall  shift  the 
weighty  imputation  from  the  Huguenot  and  the  Chap- 
lain, to  a  quarter,  where  the  Rev.  Gentleman  little 
suspects  it  can  belong.  Let  the  reader  peruse  the 
following  words  of  the  most  diligent,  as  well  as  the 
most  successful  searcher  into  antiquity,  and  then  pro- 
nounce upon  this  additional  instance  of  the  Chaplain's 
inaccuracy.  "In  the  year  1616,"  says  Archbishop 
Usher,!f  "  a  tome  of  ancient  writers,  that  never  saw  the 
light  before,  was  set  forth  at  Ingolstat,  by  Petrus 
Stuartius ;  where,  among  other  treatises,  a  certain 
Penitential,  written  by  Rabanus,  that  famous  Arch- 
bishop of  Mentz,  is  to  be  seen.  In  the  33d  chapter 
of  that  book,  Rabanus  making  answer  to  an  idle 
question  moved  by  Bishop  Heribaldus,  concerning 
the  Eucharist,  (what  should  become  of  it  after  it  was 
consumed,  and  sent  into  the  draught,  after  the  manner  of 
other  mcats,)h&th.  these  words,  (initio  pag.  669.)  Aram 
quidam  nuper  de  ipso  sacramento  corporis  &f  sanguinis 

*  Letter,  p.  32.  t  Address,  p.  71.  • 

\  Answer  to  a  Challenge,  p.  17. 


48 

domini  non  rite  sentientes,  dixerunt :  hoc  ipsum  corpus  et 
sanguinem  domini,  quod  de  Maria  virgine  natum  est  et 
in  quo  ipse  dominus  passus  est  in  cruce,  et  resurrexit  de 
sepulchro.  Cui  errori  quantum  potuimus,  ad  Egilum 
abbatem  scribentes,  de  corpore  ipso  quid  vere  credendum 
sit  aperuinius.  For  some,  of  late,  not  holding  rightly 
of  the  sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord, 
have  said,  that  the  very  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord, 
which  was  born  of  the  virgin  Mary,  and  in  which  our 
Lord  himself  suffered  on  the  cross,  and  rose  again 
from  the  grave.  Against  which  error,  writing  to 
abbot  Egilus,  according  to  our  ability,  we  have  de- 
clared, what  is  truly  to  be  believed  concerning  Christ's 
body.  You  see  Rabanus's  tongue  is  dipt  here  for 
telling  tales  :  but  how  this  came  to  pass  is  worth  the 
learning.  Stuartius  frees  himself  from  the  fact,  tell- 
ing us  in  the  margin,  that  here  there  was  a  blank  in  the 
manuscript  copy  ;*  and  we  do  easily  believe  him  :  for 
Possevine,  the  Jesuit,  hath  given  us  to  understand, 
that  manuscript  books  also  are  to  be  purged,  as  well 
as  printed.f  But  whence  was  this  manuscript  fetched, 
think  you  ?  Out  of  the  famous  monastery  of  Weingart  ; 
saith  Stuartius.J  The  monks  of  Weingart  then, 
belike,  must  answer  the  matter :  and  they,  I  dare  say, 
upon  examination  will  take  their  oaths,  that  it  was  no 
part  of  their  intention  to  give  any  furtherance  to  the 
cause  of  Protestants  hereby.  If  hereunto  we  add, 
that  Heribaldus  and  Rabanus  are  both  ranked  among 
heretics,  by  Thomas  Walden,§  for  holding  the  Eu- 

*  Lacuna  hie  est  in  MS.  exemplari. 

+  Adistos  quoque purgatio  periinet.     Lib.  1.  Bib.  Select,  cap.  12. 
$  Ex  MS.  cod.  \.tlcberrimi  monasterii  TVeingartcnsis. 
i  Waldea's  Tom.  1.  doctrinal,  in  prolog,  ad  Martinum  V.  Id.  Tom.  % 
cap.  19,  et  61. 


49 

charist  to  be  subject  to  digestion  and  voidance,  like 
other  meats ;  the  suspicion  will  be  more  vehement, 
whereunto  I  will  adjoin  one  evidence  more,  that  shall 
leave  the  matter  past  suspicion.  In  the  libraries  of 
my  worthy  friends,  Sir.  Rob.  Cotton,  (that  noble  ba- 
ronet so  renowned  for  his  great  care  in  collecting  and 
preserving  all  antiquities,)  and  Dr.  Ward,  the  learn- 
ed master  of  Sidney  College,  in  Cambridge,  I  met 
with  an  ancient  treatise  of  the  sacrament,  beginning 
thus :  Sicut  ante  nos  quidam  sapiens  dixit,  cujus  senten- 
tiam  probamus,  licet  nomen  ignoremus ;  which  is  the 
same  with  that  in  the  Jesuits'  college  at  Lovain, 
blindly  fathered  upon  Berengarius.*  The  author  of 
this  treatise,  having  first  twitted  Heribaldus  for  pro- 
pounding, and  Rabanus  for  resolving,  this  question  of 
the  voidance  of  the  Eucharist,  layeth  down  after- 
wards the  opinion  of  Paschasius  Radbertus,  whose 
writing  is  still  extant.  Contra  quern,  says  he,  satis 
argumentatur  et  Rabanus  in  epistola  ad  Egilonem  ab~ 
batem,  et  Ratrannus  quidam  libro  composito  ad  Carolum 
regem,  dicentes  (carnem  Christi)  aliam  esse.  Against 
whom  both  Rabanus,  in  his  epistle  to  abbot  Egilo,  and 
one  Ratrannus,  in  a  book  which  he  made  to  king- 
Charles,  argue  largely ;  saying,  it  is  another  kind  of 
flesh.  Whereby,  what  Rabanus's  opinion  was  of  this 
point,  in  his  epistle  to  abbot  Egilo,  or  Egilus,  and,  con- 
sequently, what  that  was  which  the  monks  of  Wein- 
gart  could  not  endure  in  his  penitential,  I  trust,  is 
plain  enough." 

The  Rev.  Gentleman  must  be  seriously  concerned 
for  the  orthodoxy  of  Bertram,  who  was  employed  by 


*  Ant.  Possevin.  Apparat.  sacr.  in  Bereutf.  Tiiron. 
7 


50 

Charles  the  Bald  to  oppose  Paschasius,  when,  in  con- 
tradiction to  Bellarmine,  Turrianus,  and  other  emi- 
nent divines,  he  adopts  his  vindication  penned  by  the 
llimsy  author  of  the  history  of  the  Whippers.*  Ber- 
tram, we  are  told,  plainly  asserts  in  many  passages 
the  Catholic  doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  The  Rev. 
Gentleman  sets  down  but  one,  which  is  probably  the 
most  explicit.  "  The  bread,"  says  he,  "  is  changed 
into  the  body  of  Christ  by  the  significancy  of  the  sa- 
cred mystery,  by  the  invisible  operation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Whence  they  are  called  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ,"  &c.f  It  requires  a  happy  talent  to  make 
out  transubstantiation  from  these  words.  They  ap- 
pear manifestly  to  mean,  if,  indeed,  they  mean  any 
thing,  that  in  the  holy  mystery  bread  and  wine  signify 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  and  are  called  so  from 
the  invisible  hallowing  of  these  elements.  Here  is 
the  sound  Protestant  doctrine,  which  made  Turria- 
nus confess,  "  that  to  cite  Bertram,  was  no  more  than 
to  declare  that  the  heresy  of  Calvin  is  not  new."! 
But,  to  clear  the  sentiments  of  this  writer  from  every 
shadow  of  doubt,  let  the  reader  be  informed,  that  the 
book  which  he  wrote  to  Charles  the  Bald,  contains, 
among  others,  these  remarkable  passages,  of  which 
the  Latin  original  is  now  before  the  Chaplain.  "  Your 
Excellency  and  Grandeur  inquires,"  says  he,  "  whe- 
ther the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  which  is  received 
by  the  mouth  of  the  faithful  in  the  church,  be  cele- 


*  Whoever  has  read  the  Historia  FlageUantium,  by  the  Abbe  Boileau,  or 
another  of  his  indecent  productions,  will  sooner  allow  him  any  appellation, 
than  that  of  a  judicious  and  solid  historian. 

t  Address,  p.  75. 

t  Franc.  Turrianus  <ie  Euchar.  contra  Volanum  lib.  1.  cap.  22. 


51 

brated  in  a  mystery  or  in  truth :  and  whether  it  be  the 
same  body  which  was  born  of  Mary,  which  did  suf- 
fer, was  dead  and  buried  ;  and  which,  rising  again 
and  ascending  into  heaven,  sitteth  at  the  right  hand 
of  the  Father  ?"*  To  this  question  he  makes  an- 
swer, "  that  the  bread  and  the  wine  are  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ  figurativeiy."f  That  according 
to  the  substance  of  the  creatures,  that  which  they 
were  before  consecration,  the  same  also  are  they  af- 
terwards :"|  That  "  they  are  called  the  Lord's  body 
and  blood,  because  they  take  the  name  of  that  thing 
of  which  they  are  a  sacrament  :?,§  That  "  there  is 
a  great  difference  between  the  mystery  of  the  blood 
and  body  of  Christ  which  is  taken  now  by  the 
faithful  in  the  church,  and  that  which  was  born  of  the 
virgin  Mary,  which  suffered,  which  was  buried,  which 
rose  again,  which  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Fa- 
ther."||  Could  the  emperor,  who  proposed  his  doubts 
upon  this  subject,  or  the  writer  who  thus  solves  them, 
believe  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  ? 
The  Chaplain  might  father  it  with  equal  propriety 
upon  Archbishop  Tillotson,  or  the  Huguenot  Alberti- 
nus.  That  Bertram  wrote  this  treatise  at  the  empe- 
ror's request,  is  evident  from  the  first  of  these  passa- 
ges ;  and  it  is  equally  certain  that,  had  the  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation  been  notorious  and  universal, 
that  prince,  as  a  good  Catholic,  would  have*  been 
shocked  and  displeased  at  Bertram  for  opposing  it. 
The  indefatigable   Dr.  Priestly,  speaking  of  Pascha- 


*  Rertram.  in  lib.  de  corp.  et  sang.  Dom.  edit.  Colon,  ann.  1551,  p.  180. 
t  Ibid.  p.  1«3.  \  Ibid.  p.  205. 

\  Ibid.  p.  20Q.  ||  Ibid.  p.  222. 


i)2 

aius  and  his  tenets,  tells  us,*  that,  *•  among  others,  the 
emperor  Charles  the  Bald,  was  much  offended  at  it, 
and,  by  his  particular  order,  the  famous  Bertram  or 
Rattram  wrote  against  the  new  opinion  of  Pascha- 
sius." 

One  word  more  of  Bertram,  and  the  Chaplain  will 
dismiss  him  :  not,  indeed,  without  some  reluctance,  for 
he  has  stood  forth  an  able  advocate  for  his  accuracy 
on  this  occasion.  His  book  upon  this  subject  was 
deemed  so  inimical  to  transubstantiation,  that  the 
Roman  inquisition  forbad  it  to  be  read.  But  the 
university  of  Doway,  perceiving  that  the  prohibition 
served  only  to  excite  the  public  curiosity,  thought  it 
more  adviseable  to  publish  the  book,  after  pruning 
away  the  exuberance  of  some  exceptionable  pas- 
sages.t  "  Since,"  say  they,  "  we  bear  with  many 
errors  in  other  ancient  Catholic  writers,  since  we 
extenuate  and  excuse,  and,  by  frequently  inventing 
some  comment,  deny  them,  and  annex  some  convenient 
sense  to  them,  when  they  are  objected  in  disputes 
and  contests  with  our  adversaries ;  we  do-  not  see 
why  Bertram  may  not  deserve  the  same  justice  and 
diligent  revisal,  lest  the  heretics  cry  out,  that  we 
burn  and  forbid  such  antiquity  as  makes  for  them." 
Accordingly,  all  the  arguments  of  this  writer,  which 
prove,  that  what  the  faithful  receive  in  the  sacrament 


P  History  of  Opinions  relating  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  p.  39. 

t  Quum  in  Catholicis  veteribus  aliis  plurinaos  feramus  errores  et  extenue- 
H3up,  excusemus,  excogitato  cominento  persaepe  negemus  et  commodum  iis 
^ensutn  affingamus  dum  opponuntur  in  disputationibus  aut  in  conflictionibus 
sum  adversariis  :  non  videmus  cur  non  eandem  aequitatem  et  diiigentem  re- 
eognitionem  mereatur  Bertramus :  ne  haeretici  ogganniant  nos  antiquitatem 
pro  ipsis  facientem  exurere  et  prohibere.  Index  Expurg.  BeJg.  page  5,  edit 
Antwerp,  aim.  1571. 


53 

is  not  the  body  of  Christ,  that  died  upon  the  cross 
and  rose  again  from  death,  are  ordered  to  be  omit- 
ted.* Here  is  another  instance  of  unprincipled  cen- 
sure, that  should  for  ever  silence  the  charge  of  gross 
misrepresentation  and  unfair  quotations  being  alleged 
against  Protestants. 

The  Chaplain  is  accused,  in  the  next  place,t  of  a 
palpable  anachronism  and  want  of  attention  in  mista- 
king the  era  of  the  obscure  bishop  who  first  invented 
the  word  transubstantiation.  The  Rev.  Gentleman 
asserts  that  he  lived  about  the  year  950,  and  not  in 
the  twelfth  century.  The  learned  Bellarmine,  how- 
ever, speaks  less  positively  of  this  fact  :  "  He  is  said 
to  have  flourished  about  the  year  950."J  And  the 
celebrated  Dr.  Priestly,  whose  chronological  accura- 
cy stands  so  high  at  present,  tells  us,  that  "  the  term 
transubstantiation  was  first  used  by  Stephen,  Bishop 
of  Autun,  in  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century.'^ 
He  says,  moreover,  "  that  he  was  cotemporary  with 
Peter  Lombard  ;"||  who,  according  to  Bellarmine, 
flourished  in  the  year  1145.**  Many  eminent  di- 
vines are  of  the  same  opinion  with  the  Huguenot  Ah 
bertinus,  whose  authority  is  at  any  time  upon  a  level 
with  that  of  the  Jansenist  Nicole.tt 


*  Non  male  aut  inconsulte  omitlantur  igitur  omnia  hsec.  Ibid.  The  learn- 
ed Richer,  syndic  of  the  theological  faculty  of  Paris,  tells  us,  Council,  General. 
lib.  4.  par.  2.,  u  That  the  court  of  Rome  suppresses  and  abolishes  all  those 
acts  which  contradict  its  usurped  rights ;  and  hence  it  is  that  many  spurious 
things  are  read  as  genuine,  even  in  ancient  councils." 

1  Address,  p.  77. 

\  Dieitur  autem  floruisse  anno  Dom.  950.     De  Scrip.  Eccl.  p.  276. 

i   History  of  Opinions,  &c.  p.  41. 

j|  Ibid.  p.  43. 

**  Ibid.  p.  321. 

tt  This  writer  and  his  associates,  les  Messieurs  de  Port-Royal,  being  the 


u 

This  unmerited  censure  of  inaccuracy  being  done 
away,  the  Chaplain  does  not  consider  a  regular  at- 
tendance upon  the  Rev.  Gentleman  through  the  nine 
ensuing  pages  of  his  address  to  be  any  wise  material. 
They  contain  nothing  but  historical  facts,  which  he 
means  not  to  controvert.  For  upwards  of  two  hun- 
dred years  of  the  most  deplorable  ignorance  and 
depravity  of  manners  that  ever  disgraced  the 
annals  of  mankind,  the  doctrine  first  broached  by 
Paschasius,  had  ample  leisure  to  spread  itself  through 
the  churches  of  Christendom.  The  dark  genius  of 
superstition  snatched  eagerly  at  a  tenet  which 
came  recommended  by  all  the  extravagance  of  mys- 
tery ;  and,  having  nothing  to  apprehend  from  the 
hostile  light  of  philosophy  and  science,  played  it  off 
with  success  upon  the  credulity  of  some  and  the  pas- 
sions of  others.  Towards  the  middle  of  the  eleventh 
century,  it  appears  to  have  gained  many  advocates, 
and  was  becoming  universal;  when  Berenger,  the 
learned  Archdeacon  of  Angers,  began  to  oppose  it. 
This  he  did  with  such  abilities  and  success,  that  in 
spite  of  the  several  councils  mentioned  by  the  Rev. 
Gentleman,  in  spite  of  the  fierce  menaces  of  implaca- 
ble enthusiasts,  mankind  was  awakened  by  the  firm 
voice  of  reason,  and  France,  Italy,  and  England  were 
filled   with  his   disciples.*     From  that  period  to  the 

avowed,  and,  it  may  be  added,  the  malicious  enemies  of  the  Jesuits,  it  is  won- 
derful that  the  Rev.  Gentleman  should  so  highly  appreciate  La  Perpetuite  de  la 
Foi,  which  is  altogether  a  production  of  this  school,  and  is  justly  styled  by  Le 
Couraycr,  le  Triomphe  de  la  dialect  ique  sur  la  raison. 

*  William  of  Malmesbury,  who,  as  Usher  asserts,  de  succ.  et  stat.  Christ. 
Etcl.  pi  101.,  was  the  author  of  the  Continuation  of  Bedc,  printed  at  Heidel- 
berg in  1*87,  tells  us,  "that  all  France  was  full  of  his  doctrine,  which  was 
propagated  by  the  poor  students,  whom  lie  gained  over  by  his  daily  alms.'* 
De  Gestis  Angloruvi  lib.  3.     Roger  of  Wendover,  and  Matthew  Paris,  in  his 


55 

present,  great  and  respectable  bodies  of  Christians 
have  constantly  rejected  the  tenet  of  transubstantia- 
tion.  The  facility  with  which  this  doctrine  was 
abandoned,  shows  plainly  that  it  had  taken  no  strong 
hold  upon  men's  minds.  It  is  to  be  presumed  that  the 
far  greater  part  knew  not  themselves  what  they  believ- 
ed on  this  head;  for,  at  periods  infinitely  more  enlight- 
ened, this  has  frequently  been  the  case.  The  Chap- 
lain, therefore,  with  most  learned  Protestants,  admits, 
and  he  does  it  without  any  reluctance,  (Add.  p.  82..,) 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  carnal  presence  had  greatly 
prevailed,  when  Berenger  arose  to  refute  it ;  but  he 
denies  that  it  had  full  possessio?i  of  men's  minds :  for 
authentic  monuments  of  history  evince,  that,  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  eleventh  century,  the  matter  was  fre- 
quently debated,  and  an  opposite  opinion  sometimes 
taught.  One  proof,  out  of  many,  shall -suffice  for  this 
assertion.  Alfrick,  abbot  of  Malmesbury,  in  an  Easter 
homily,  which  he  wrote  about  the  year  1026,  has 
these  remarkable  words  :  "  Men  have  often  searched, 
and  do  yet  often  search,  how  bread  that  is  gathered  of 
corn,  and  baked  by  the  heat  of  the  fire,  may  be  turn- 
ed into  Christ's  body,  or  how  wine  that  is  pressed  out 

Listory  of  the  year  1007,  support  the  same  fact.  In  a  word,  Matthew,  who 
collected  the  history  of  Westminster  and  Rochester,  tells  us  expressly, 
"  that  at  this  time  Berenger  of  Tours  falling  into  heretical  pravity,  had  cor- 
rupted all  the  French,  Italians,  and  English  with  his  errors."  Eodcm  tem- 
pore Berengatius  Tur'onensis  in  hwrecticam  lapsus  pravitatem,  omnes  Gallos, 
Italos  et  Anglos  suis  jam  corruperat  pravitatibus.  Hence,  as  Usher  observes, 
we  may  justly  call  in  question  the  assertion  of  Guitmundus,  when,  to  serve 
his  own  cause,  he  says  that  the  doctrine  of  Berenger  was  not  received  in  ant 
borough,  or  even  one  village.  See  Address,  p.  81.  In  a  word,  so  fluctuating 
were  men's  opinions  on  this  matter,  that  Engclbert,  Archbishop  of  Trevers, 
assures  us,  that  Hildebrand  himself  was  doubtful,  whether  ichat  is  taken  at  the 
Lord's  table  be  the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  Constitut.  Imjt.  Gvh' 
Tsvt.  I. p.  A<i,  apud  Usserium. 


56 

of  many  grapes,  is  turned  through  one  blessing  into 
the  Lord's  blood."*  His  solution  of  these  difficulties 
is  not  only  similar  to  that  of  Bertram,  mentioned  above, 
but  in  many  places  translated  literally  from  it.  The 
text  of  each  of  these  writers  is  now  before  the  Chap- 
lain. And  the  argument  he  draws  from  this  fact  is 
unanswerable.  This  homily  was  appointed  to  be  read 
publicly  to  the  people  in  England,  on  Easter  day,  be- 
fore the  communion.  The  same  doctrine  was  deliver- 
ed to  the  clergy,  by  the  bishops  at  their  respective 
synods.  In  one  of  these  writings,  directed  to  Wulf- 
fine,  bishop  of  Sherburne,  it  is  said,  "  that  the  housel 
(communion)  is  Ghrist's  body,  not  bodily,  but  spirit- 
ually. Not  the  body  in  which  he  suffered,  but  the 
body  of  which  he  spake,  when  he  blessed  bread  and 
wine  to  housel,  the  night  before  his  suffering,  &c." 
Again,  addressing  himself  to  Wolfstane,  archbishop 
of  York,  the  writer  thus  expresses  himself:  "  The 
Lord  who  hallowed  housel  before  his  suffering,  hal- 
Ioweth  daily  bread  to  his  body,  by  the  hands  of  the 
priest,  and  wine  to  his  blood  in  spiritual  mystery,  as 
we  read  in  books.  And  yet,  notwithstanding,  that 
lively  bread  is  not  bodily  so,  nor  the  self-same  body 
that  Christ  suffered  in  :  nor  that  holy  wine  is  the  Sa- 
viour's blood  which  was  shed  for  us  in  bodily  things 
but  in  spiritual  understanding.  Both  are  truly  that 
bread  his  body,  and  that  wine  also  his  blood,  as  was 
the  heavenly  bread  which  we  call  manna,  that  fed 
God's  people  for  forty  years ;  and  the  clear  water 
which  did  then  run  from  the  stone  in  the  wilderness, 
was  truly  his   blood;   as  Paul  wrote  in  one  of  his 

*  Homil.  pascb.  Auglo-Saxonica  impres»a  Lond.  per.  Jo.  Daiuia  et  MS. 
in  Pub.  Cantab.  Acad.  Bib.  apud  Usserium  Respons.  p.  79. 


57 

epistles."*  The  reader  is  qualified  by  this  time  to 
pronounce  upon  the  authorities  alleged  by  the^Rev. 
Gentleman  for  the  universal  belief  of  transubstantia- 
tion,  at  the  period  we  are  speaking  of.  He  will  pro- 
bably regard  them  as  confident  assertions  usurping  the 
•place  of  matters  of  fact,  or  as  fresh  instances  of  the  ig- 
norance of  these  assemblies.  At  any  rate,  no  coun- 
cil that  condemned  Berenger,  before  that  of  Lateran, 
in  1215,  is  allowed  to  be  general  by  Roman  Catholic 
di vines.  That  held  at  Rome  in  1050,  by  the  confes- 
sion of  Gratian,  conceived  its  decrees  in  terms  that 
render  them  doubtful  or  absurd. f  The  others  were 
merely  provincial  synods,  by  no  means  competent  to 
establish  an  article  of  faith.  From  all  which  it  fol- 
lows, that,  previous  to  the  council  of  Lateran,  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation  was  no  article  of  Ro- 
man Catholic  belief:  which  is  all  the  Chaplain  as* 
sorts  in  his  letter. 

How  this  doctrine  gained  ground  during  the 
gloomy  period  that  intervened  between  Paschasius 
and  Berenger,  in  what  year  it  was  adopted  by  par- 
ticular churches,  or  why  it  met  not  with  more  early 
opposition,  is  by  no  means  incumbent  on  the  Chap- 
lain to  demonstrate.  He  advanced  a  matter  of  fact, 
and  he  has  proved  it.  They,  however,  who  are  ac- 
quainted with  the  imbecility  of  the  human  mind,  when 
all  its  faculties  are  suffered  to  lie  waste  and  unculti- 
vated, will  deem  the  space  of  two  centuries  more  than 
sufficient  to  settle  the  usurpations  of  error  upon  the 
overthrow  of  reason.     The  origin  of  an  intellectual 

•  See  this  treatise  impr.  Lond.  cum  hom.  pasch.  et  MS.  in  pub.  Oxon.  Bib- 
et  Colleg.  S.  Ben.  Cantab,  apud  Usser.  ibid.  p.  82. 

t  Letter,  p.  33.  The?e  decrees  may  be  seen  in  vol.  1 .  of  IVPosheim's  Eccle- 
siastical History. 

$ 


58 

as  well  as  of  a  bodily  plague,  is  very  frequently  obscure 
and  uncertain,  but  when  the  mind  is  prepared  to  re* 
ceive  the  infection,  its  progress  and  its  ravages  are 
rapid  and  distinct.  It  was  during  this  dark  and  wo- 
ful  period  of  astonishing  ignorance,  while  men  were 
asleep,  that  the  enemy  of  the  church  came  and  sowed  tares 
among  the  wheat  and  went  his  way.  (Matth.  xiii.  24,  25.) 
"  An  unhappy  period,"  says  Genebrand,*  and  other 
Roman  Catholic  writers,  "  destitute  of  men  either  of 
genius  or  learning,  as  also  of  famous  princes  or  bish- 
ops." "  A  period  in  which  were  no  famous  writers? 
nor  councils. ,"f  "  A  period  than  which  none  was  ever 
more  unlearned  and  imhappy."J  A  period  which. 
"  for  want  of  writers,  is  usually  styled  the  obscure 
age."§  A  period,  in  a  word,  when  an  aspiring  pontiff, 
to  secure  the  attachment  and  submission  of  the  clergy, 
broke  down  the  sacred  enclosures  of  connubial  re- 
straint, and  thus  let  loose  on  Christendom  an  inunda- 
tion of  vice,  which  raged  with  unabating  fury  down  to 
the   reformation. ||     Now,  although  we  be  unable  to 

*  Chronic,  lib.  4. 

t  Bcllarm.  inChronol.  anno  970.  This  assertion  of  the  learned  Cardinal 
runs  directly  counter  to  the  Rev.  Gentleman's  opinion,  delivered  in  his  Ad- 
dress, page  85. 

%  Idem  de  Rom.  Pont.  lib.  4.  cap.  12. 

$  Baron.  Annal.  Tom.  10.  ann.  900.  sect.  1. 

||  See  the  History  of  the  Dismal  Consequences  of  the  Law  of  Celibacy,  in 
Usher,  de  successione  &  statu  Christ.  Eccl.  and  the  Essay  on  this  subject, 
printed  at  Worcester,  in  England,  in  1782.  Sigebert,  a  cotemporary  wri- 
ter, tells  us  in  his  chronicle,  "  that  Pope  Gregory  (VII.)  removed  the  mar- 
ried priests  from  the  divine  functions  by  a  new  procedure,  and  (as  it  appear- 
ed to  many)  by  a  rash  prejudice  against  the  opinion  of  the  holy  fathers,  &c. 
Prom  which  step,"  says  he,  "  so  great  a  scandal  arises,  that  in  the  time  of 
uo  heresy  was  the  holy  church  torn  to  pieces,  by  a  more  dreadful  schism. 
Few  observing  continency,  some  feigning  it  for  the  sake  of  lucre  and  repu- 
tation ;  many  adding  to  their  incontinency,  both  perjury  and  adultery." 
How  greatly  all  this,  and  much  more  that  could  be  alleged,  to  the  credit  of 
celibacy,  and  to  the  age  in  which  it  was  ultimately  enacted  ! 


59 

mark  the  several  stages  of  error,  or  fix  with  preci- 
sion every  devastation  occasioned  by  the  spirit  of  de- 
ceit, who,  "  as  a  roaring  lion,  walketh  about  seeking 
whom  he  may  devour;"  (Pet.  v.  8.)  yet^ve  cannot  in- 
fer from  hence  that'he  lost  the  opportunity  of  so  dark 
a  night,  or  neglected  to  avail  himself  of  the  unbound- 
ed depravity  which  corrupted,  and  the  general  lethar- 
gy which  benumbed,  the  faculties  of  men.  Protestants 
therefore  may  believe,  that  in  such  circumstances  an 
error  may  gradually  spread,  and  even  become  uni- 
versal, and  still  find  transubstantiation  too  hard  for 
their  digestion.     (Address,  p.  83.) 

"  That  this  doctrine  ever  was,  and  is  still,  a  tenet  of 
the  Greeks,  the  Armenians,  the  Cophtics,  and  Abys- 
sinians,"*  is  a  position  much  more  easily  advanced 
than  supported.  It  positively  contradicts  the  latest 
accounts  of  the  most  enlightened  travellers  ;  who  tell 
us,  that  the  Greek  prelates,  when  questioned  upon 
this  doctrine,  reject  it  with  indignation.'!"  As  for  the 
Cophs  and  Abyssinians,  their  ancient  liturgies  explain 
the  words  of  the  institution  by  saying,  this  bread  is  my 
body,X  which  Bellarmine  acknowledges  to  be  tanta- 
mount to  a  denial  of  the  mystery.^  Moreover,  will 
the  Rev.  Gentleman  persuade  us,  that  the  Greek 
church  admitted  transubstantiation  in  the  time  of 
Photius,  when  we  know  from  historv,  that  the  fathers 


*  Address,  p.  83. 

+  See  their  several  relations,  in  Dr.  Hurd's  History  of  all  Religions, 
Among  others,  the  learned  Wheeler  and  Chandler  have  deposed  against  the 
Rev.  Gentleman's  assertion. 

|  See  Usher  de  success,  et  statu  Christ.  Eccl. 

}  Non  igitur  potest  fieri,  ut  vera  sit  propositio,  in  qua  subjectum  proponit 
pro  pane,  praedicatum  autem  pro  corpore  Christi.  Panis  enim  et  corpus 
Domini  res  diversissimae  sunt.     Be.llar.  <fe  Euch.  lib.  3.  cap.  19. 


60 

of  the  council  of  Constantinople,  in  869,  used  the  con- 
secrated wine  mixed  with  ink  to  sign  his  condemna- 
tion ?#  What  an  abuse  of  the  Eucharistical  elements, 
what  a  profanation  would  this  have  been  !  The  be- 
lief of  the  Greek  church  upon  this  matter  is  illus- 
trated by  John  Damascenus  in  the  following  manner  : 
"  Isaiah  saw  a  lighted  coal ;  now  a  lighted  coal  is  not 
mere  wood,  but  wood  joined  to  fire  ;  so  the  bread  of 
the  sacrament  is  not  mere  bread,  but  bread  joined  to 
the  divinity,  and  the  body  united  to  the  divinity  is  not 
one  and.the  same  nature,  but  the  nature  of  the  body 
is  one,  and  that  of  the  divinity  united  to  it  another." 
"  This,"  says  Dr.  Priestly,t  "  has  been  the  faith  of  the 
Greek  church  ever  since  the  time  of  this  Damascenus, 
who  wrote  in  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century, 
and  his  name  is  as  great  an  authority  in  the  Eastern 
church,  as  that  of  Thomas  Aquinas  was  afterwards  in 
the  West.  In  reality,  the  Greeks  must  consider  the 
Eucharistical  elements  as  another  body  of  Christ,  to 
which  his  soul  or  his  divinity  bears  the  same  relation 
that  it  did  to  the  body  which  he  had  when  on  earth, 
and  with  which  he  ascended  to  heaven.  They  must 
suppose  that  there  is,  as  it  were,  a  multiplication  of 
bodies  to  the  same  soul.  JYo  real  change,  however,  is 
by  them  supposed  to  be  made  in  the  substance  of  the  bread 
and  wine;  only  from  being  mere  bread  and  wine, 
it  becomes  a  new  body  and  blood  to  Christ."  Here 
is  a  doctrine  perfectly  suited  to  the  subtile  genius  of 
the  Greeks.  It  may  be  absurd,  but  still  it  is  not  tran- 
substantiation.  The  Rev.  Gentleman,  therefore,  ap- 
pears rather  too  sanguine,  when  he  asserts,  "  that 

*  Pritstly's  Hist,  of  Opinions,  p,  27.  t  Ibid.  p.  34. 


61 

obstinacy  or  ignorance  alone  can  deny  that  his  doc- 
trine concerning  the  Eucharist,  agrees  with  that  of 
all  the  churches  he  had  mentioned."*  The  reader 
has  just  seen  the  decided  opinion  of  a  man  who  never 
yet  was  accused  of  ignorance,  nor  charged  with  ob- 
stinacy, when  disengaged  from  the  discussion  of  his 
peculiar  opinions.  Wherefore,  the  Rev.  Gentleman's 
inference  from  his  contested  premises  will  not,  per- 
haps, be  so  conclusive  as  he  imagines ;  nor  will  his 
apology  for  the  dark  ages  be  admitted  until  more  in- 
stances of  knowledge  than  one  be  produced  to  invali- 
date the  profusion  of  authorities,  which  have  ever 
stamped  them  with  a  variety  of  infamy. 

The  Chaplain  had  advanced,t  "  that  many  cele- 
brated controvertists  of  the  Roman  church  acknow- 
ledge that  some  of  her  esseritial  tenets  are  not  to  be 
found  at  all  in  the  scriptures,  or  are  delivered  in 
them  with  great  obscurity."  He  briefly  instanced 
this  fact  with  respect  to  transubstantiation,  the 
priest's  power  to  forgive  sins,  and  the  doctrine  of 
purgatory.  He  produced  three  or  four  eminent  di- 
vines as  vouchers  for  the  first,  and  this  the  Rev.  Gen- 
tleman calls  exhausting  his  authorities  against  transub- 
stantiation.%  The  reader  might  conclude  from  these 
words  that  instead  of  about  thirty  lines,  the  Chaplain 
}iad  compiled  a  folio  against  this  tenet.  Not  that 
such  a  task  would  by  any  means  be  difficult ;  were  he 
merely  to  transcribe  all  the  passages  of  the  ancient 
fathers,  which  declare  that  what  Christ  called  his 
body,  is  bread  in  substance,  and  his  body  in  figure 
only,  and  sacramental  relation.  The  reader  who  may 

*  Address,  p.  84.  [  etter,  p.  10  |  Address, p.  88. 


62 

wish  to  peruse  these  passages,  will  find  them  in  abun- 
dance in  every  Protestant  controvertist  who  treats 
upon  the  Eucharist.  What  the  Chaplain  meant  to 
infer  from  the  authorities  which  he  mentioned  was 
merely  the  sentiment  delivered  by  Bellarmine  in 
these  words  :  "  that  it  may  be  reasonably  doubted, 
whether  scripture  in  this  matter  appear  so  evi- 
dent as  to  command  the  belief  of  a  dispassionate  per- 
son, since  men  of  the  greatest  learning  and  penetra- 
tion, among  whom  Scotus  is  eminently  conspicuous, 
have  thought  otherwise."*  Here  we  have  the  learn- 
ed cardinal  expressly  delivering  the  Chaplain's  posi- 
tion, and  his  authority  alone  shall  supersede  the 
trouble  of  looking  for  other  great  names  to  support  it. 
With  reason,  therefore,  did  the  Chaplain  assert,! 
"  that  he  could  never  discover  this  and  some  other 
doctrines  in  the  scriptures,  as  they  escaped  the  notice 
of  very  acute  and  interested  inquirers."  He  observ- 
ed consequently  "  that  these  discriminating  tenets  de- 
rive their  whole  weight  from  the  infallible  authority 
of  the  Church  which  teaches  them."  And  he  reason- 
ed further,  "  that  the  arguments  against  these  doc- 
trines, drawn  from  their  palpable  contradictions, 
appear  greatly  an  overmatch  for  such  as  are  alleged 
for  the  infallible  church  that  enforces  them :  there- 
fore, reason  tells  him  that,  rather  than  admit  such 
doctrines,  he  should  not  balance  to  discard  such  au- 
thority." To  illustrate  this  argument  he  mentioned! 
a  few  consequences  of  transubstantiation  which  appear 
to  him  absurd  and  contradictory.  The  Rev.  Gentle- 
man does  not  attempt  to  clear  them  of  this  charge  : 
He  is  of  opinion,  however,  that  these  difficulties  "  re- 

*  De  Euch.  lib.  3.  cap.  28.  t  Letter,  p.  22.  %  Lfttter,  p.  24. 


63 

suit  more  immediately  from  Christ's  real  presence  i'n 
the  Eucharist  than  from  transubstantiation  ;  but,"  says 
he,  "  to  impute  them  to  that  doctrine  would  not  be 
quite  so  inoffensive."*  Nor  would  it  in  any  degree 
be  warrantable  so  to  do  :  for  the  doctrine  of  Protest- 
ants, on  this  head,  can  defy  the  most  subtle  schoolman 
to  fix  a  single  contradiction  upon  it,  of  those  enume- 
rated in  the  Chaplain's  letter.  Transubstantiation 
alone  holds  an  exclusive  right  in  them,  and  will  con- 
tinue to  hold  it,  until  Protestants  shall  confess,  or 
their  opponents  demonstrate,  that  to  receive  the  body 
mid  blood  of  Christ  verily  and  indeed^  implies  not 
only  a  spiritual  and  sacramental  presence,  but  a  cor- 
poral and  substantial  presence,  a  physical  and  oral 
eating  and  drinking  of  Christ's  body  and  blood. 
From  this  idea  only  every  difficulty  originates.  Here 
our  senses  are  bewildered,  our  religion  recoils,  our 
reason  stands  aghast.  A  bit  of  bread  becomes  the 
substance  of  the  son  of  God,  and  yet  retains  all  the 
properties  of  bread  !  A  moment  ago  it  was  nothing 
more.  Four  words  are  pronounced  by  a  priest,  and 
this  earthly  substance  becomes  the  physical  body  and 
blood  of  a  man — of  a  God!  And  yet  it  appears, 
tastes,  smells,  feels,  and  nourishes  like  mere  bread  ! 
At  the  same  instant  of  time  in  a  million  of  different 
places,  the  same  identical  body  exists  in  a  million  of 
different  circumstances.  Here  it  is  at  rest — there  in 
motion.  Here  it  is  held  up  to  public  adoration — - 
there  it  descends  into  the  stomach  of  a  sinner.  In 
heaven  it  is  a  real  organical  body — on  earth  it  is 
without  organs,    without  dimensions,  without  extent, 

*  Address,  p.  95  t  Sre  Ita  Catechism  of  the  church  of  England 


64 

without  weight,  without  any  obvious  property  of  a 
living  body.  The  Rev.  Gentleman  may  style  such 
objections  the  foulest  dregs  of controversy  ,•*  but  this  is 
not  to  answer  them.  No  wonder  the  Jews  were 
astonished  at  the  idea  of  Christ  giving  his  flesh  to  eat : 
(John  vi.)  taken  in  a  literal  sense,  it  was  truly  a  hard 
saying.  But  our  kind  Redeemer  pitied  their  igno- 
rance, and  dispelled  their  perplexity.  "  It  is  the 
spirit,"  says  he,  "  that  quickeneth,  the  flesh  profiteth 
nothing ;  the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you  they  are 
spirit,  and  they  are  life."  (John  vi.  63.)  At  this 
rational  comment  every  difficulty  vanishes ;  faith  and 
reason  are  no  longer  at  variance. — Thrice  happy 
had  it  been  for  the  cause  of  humanity  and  religion,  if 
this  solution  which  Christ  gives  of  his  own  words,  had 
been  seriously  attended  to  by  succeeding  ages.  A 
principal  subject  of  ridicule  had  been  removed  from 
unbelievers,  and  the  Arabian  sage  had  not  exclaim- 
ed with  exultation,  "  that  since  Christians  eat  what 
they  adore,  he  would  wish  his  soul  to  abide  with  the 
,philosophers."f 

The  Rev.  Gentleman  is  of  opinion  that  many  cir- 
cumstances in  the  life  of  our  Saviour  are  full  as  ex- 
ceptionable as  the  change  of  the  substance  of  bread 
into  his  natural  body.  Were  this  really  the  case, 
it  would  be  a  further  justification  of  the  sentiment  of 
Averroes.  But  let  a  single  instance  in  the  life  of 
Christ  be  exhibited,  that  induces  us  to  discredit  the 
evidence  of  our  senses.  The  union  of  the  divine  and 
human  nature,  although  incomprehensible,  falls  not 


*  Address,  p.  9£i. 

t  Quandoquidem  Christian!  comedunt  quod  adorant,  sit  anima  mea  cum 
fliilosophis.    Avenoes. 


65 

within  their  sphere  of  action.  But  during  his  abode 
upon  earth,  his  form,  his  voice,  his  flesh,  were  those 
of  a  man,  while  his  sovereign  control  over  nature 
proclaimed  him  to  be  God.  All,  therefore,  who  saw, 
heard,  and  touched  him,  from  the  evidence  of  their 
senses  declared  him  to  be  the  former — they  who  rea- 
soned upon  his  wonders,  pronounced  him  to  be  the 
latter.  Is  the  case  any  wise  similar  in  transubstan- 
tiation  ?  The  Rev.  Gentleman  indeed  produces  a 
genuine  passage  from  St.  Chrysostom*  to  prove  that 
we  must  submit  to  this  tenet,  however  it  seem  to  con- 
tradict our  senses.  "  Believe  me,"  says  this  Doctor, 
"  you  see  him,  you  touch  him,  you  eat  him.  You 
would  be  contented  to  see  his  clothes  ;  and  he  lets 
you  not  only  see  him,  but  also  touch  him,  and  eat 
him,  and  receive  him  within  you."  (Horn.  81.  alias 
82.  in  Matth.)  Here  the  reader  is  presented  with 
one  of  those  hyperbolical  passages  which  in  the  heat 
of  declamation  often  dropt  inadvertently  from  the 
glowing  fancy  of  the  Greeks.  The  Rev.  Gentle- 
man himself  cannot  surely  admit  the  literal  meaning 
of  these  words.  For  does  he  not  profess,  that  Christ 
is  only  present,  under  the  appearances  of  bread  and 
wine  ?  How  then  can  we  see  his  body,  when  nothing 
but  bread  and  wine  appears ;  or  touch  it,  when  the 
sacramental  elements  are  the  sole  object  of  this 
sense?  This  genuine  quotation,  therefore,  avails  but 
little — like  many  other  expressions  of  the  ancient  fa- 
thers, which  escaped  them  during  their  extempore 
discourses,  it  will  not  stand  the  test  of  analytical  criti- 
cism. However,  to  convince  the  reader  that  no  pas- 
sage  from   this,  or  any  other  of  the  fathers,  can  be 

*  Address,  p..  97. 
9 


66 

brought  forth  for  transubstantiation,  to  which  a  coun- 
ter-passage cannot  be  produced,  let  him  peruse  the 
following  words  of  the  same  eloquent  doctor,  taken 
from  his  dogmatical  epistle  to  Cesarius  against  the 
heresy  of  Apolinarius  :#  "  As,  before  the  bread  is 
sanctified,  we  call  it  bread ;  but  when  God's  grace 
has  sanctified  it  by  the  means  of  the  priest,  it  is  delivered 
from  the  name  of  bread,  and  is  reputed  worthy  of  the 
name  of  the  Lord's  body,  although  the  nature  of  bread 
remain  still  in  it,  &c."  Whoever  will  open  any  Pro- 
testant writer  upon  this  subject,  or  be  at  the  trouble 
of  perusing  the  ancient  fathers  themselves,  will  quick- 
ly discover  a  variety  of  passages  equally  conclusive 
against  any  physical  change  in  the  nature  of  the  ele- 
ments, and  evidently  proving  that  the  old  writers 
spoke  merely  of  a  presence  of  union,  efficacy,  and 
grace.  If  in  other  parts  of  their  writings  they  some- 
times countenance  a  physical  and  carnal  presence, 
we  must  conclude  that  their  notions  on  this  matter 
were  vague  and  unsettled,  and  that  they  conceived 
themselves  at  liberty  to  explain  the  words  of  the  eu- 
charistic  institution,  in  the  manner  best  suited  to  their 
audience,  or  the  subject  matter  of  their  several  dis- 
courses. The  Chaplain  entreats  the  reader  to  bear 
with  him  a  few  moments  longer  on  this  head,  and  he 
will  dismiss  it  altogether.  It  is  with  much  reluctance 
that  he  has  dwelt  on  it  so  long. 


*  This  passage  makes  so  powerfully  against  transubstantiation,  that  several 
Roman  Catholic  writers  have  called  the  authenticity  of  this  letter  in  question. 
But  Archbishop  Usher  says,  he  finds  it  cited  in  the  collections  against  the 
Severians,  which  are  to  be  seen  in  Canisius^s  Lectiones  Antiquaz.  Tom.  4. 
pag.  238,  translated  by  Francis  Turrianus.  It  is  also  twice  cited  by  John 
Damascen  against  the  Acephali,  and  the  context  of  this  passage  is  adopt- 
ed by  the  Jesuit  Turrianus.     Ush.  Catalogue  of  Authors,  &c.  ad  ann.  400. 


67 

He  had  mentioned  in  a  note*  two  negative  arsru- 
ments  to  prove  that  transubstantiation  was  unknown 
to  the  ancient  Christians.  They  appeared  to  him  to 
amount  to  a  moral  demonstration ;  and  they  appear 
so  still.  The  first  is  this — It  is  well  known  that  the 
orthodox  writers  against  the  Arians  exhausted  every 
source  of  argument  which  a  zeal  for  truth,  or  the 
warmth  of  controversy,  could  suggest,  to  prove  the 
divinity  of  Christ.  Now,  would  not  this  doctrine 
have  derived  great  support  from  the  following  fact  ? 
viz.  that  Christians  from  the  days  of  the  apostles  had 
always  conceived  Christ  to  be  really  and  corporally 
present  in  the  Eucharist,  and  that  the  elements  were 
then  and  ever  had  been  adored  with  the  same  supreme 
worship  as  is  paid  to  the  Father."  And  yet  this  fact, 
so  favourable  to  their  cause,  is  never  mentioned  by 
one  of  these  numerous  and  eminent  writers:  an  evi- 
dent proof  that  it  did  not  exist.  But,  says  the  Rev. 
Gentleman,t  the  Arians  did  not  deny  that  Christ 
was  "  a  divine  person,  true  God  of  true  God,  eternal, 
the  same  God  wTith  the  Father, — and,  therefore,  an 
object  of  divine  worship."  As  a  voucher  for  this 
doctrine  of  the  Arians,  he  introduces  Socrates,  a  No- 
vatian  heretic,  whose  historical  inaccuracy  is  well 
known  to  the  critics.  Some  few  of  the  Arians,  how- 
ever, may  have  made  these  concessions ;  but  if  the 
reader  will  peruse  the  history  of  this  heresy  in  the 
elegant  Mr.  Gibbon,  or  the  temperate  Priestly,  he 
will  find,  that  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  sect  ad- 
hered to  the  original  doctrine  of  Arius,  maintaining  that 
the  Son  of  God  was  a  creature  neither  co-eternal  nor  con- 

*  Letter,  p.  24.  '    Addres?,  p.  89. 


68 

substantial  with  the  Father.  This  opinion  of  Arius  is 
gathered  from  Epiphanius,  Augustin,  and  Theodoret, 
by  the  learned  Bellarmine,  whose  words  are  these.* 
"  Arius,  a  priest  of  Alexandria,  taught  that  the  Son  of 
God  is  a  creature  neither  co-eternal  nor  co-essential 
with  the  Father."  Here  is  a  firm  foundation  for  the 
Chaplain's  argument,  erected  upon  an  authority 
which  the  Rev.  Gentleman  will  hardly  controvert. 
The  Arians  taught  that  Christ  is  a  creature,  yet  the 
writers  who  refuted  them  never  urged  the  practice 
of  adoring  him  with  supreme  worship  in  the  Eucha- 
rist, to  prove  him  to  be  God.  The  omission  of  this 
circumstance  must  evince  the  nullity  of  any  such 
practice  :  it  shows,  moreover,  that  the  adoration  men- 
tioned in  St.  Chrysostom's  liturgy ,t  means  only  an  in- 
ferior act  of  reverence  to  the  elements,  or  a  supreme 
act  of  worship  paid  to  Christ,  either  spiritually  pre- 
sent, or  reigning  .personally  with  his  Father  in 
heaven. 

The  second  negative  argument  is  drawn  from  the 
silence  of  pagan  writers  with  respect  to  the  inconsis- 
tencies of  transubstantiation.  Had  this  tenet  been 
current  when  they  wrote,  no  privacy  of  worship 
could  have  concealed  it  from  them.  Every  persecu- 
tion made  many  apostates  who  would  naturally  com- 
municate, expose,  and  ridicule  so  unnatural  a  doc- 
trine. It  could  not  have  escaped  the  knowledge  of 
a  Celsus,  a  Porphyry,  or  a  Julian.  "  The  Philoso- 
phers,"  says  the  learned   professor    Bullet,|   "  saw 


*  Chron.  pars  altera  p.  495.  de  Scrip.  Eccl.  t  Address,  p.  91. 

$  Histoire  de  FEtablissement  du  Christianisme  trace  des  Auteurs  Juifs  fc 
Payens,  &c.  The  History  of  the  Establishment  of  Christianity,  compiled 
from  Jewish  and  Heathen  Authors  only,  exhibiting  a  substantial  proof  of  the 


69 

with  concern  the  success  of  Christianity.  Whether 
out  of  zeal  for  their  gods,  or  vexation  to  see  them- 
selves confounded,  they  resolved  to  exert  their  most 
vigorous  efforts  to  stop  the  course  of  this  religion : 
they  studied  its  doctrines  :  they  perused  with  attention 
its  books,  with  a  view  to  heighten  all  the  difficulties 
they  could  find  there.  Celsus,  Porphyry,  and  Julian 
composed  works,  in  which  they  employed  all  the  re- 
sources of  their  genius,  to  give  a  plausible  turn  to 
idolatry,  and  to  charge  Christianity  with,  contradictions 
and  absurdities" — And  yet  among  these  alleged  ab- 
surdities, we  do  not  meet  with  one  that  results  from 
transubstantiation.  Although  they  studied  the  doc- 
trines of  Christianity,  although  Julian  was  born  and 
educated  a  Christian,  yet  this  tenet,  so  fraught  with 
contradictions,  escaped  his  ridicule  and  his  censure. 
To  swallow  such  improbabilities,  is  to  set  every  rule 
of  historical  criticism  at  defiance.  To  suppose,  that 
objections  of  this  nature  might  have  been  made  by 
the  pagans,  although  not  one  of  them  be  recorded  in 
their  works  which  have  come  down  to  us,  or  in  those 
of  the  voluminous  Christian  writers  who  refuted  them, 
will  be  deemed,  perhaps,  an  instance  of  as  violent 
prejudice  as  that  to  which  the  Chaplain's  renunciation 
of  some  former  opinions  is  ungenerously  attributed.* 
In  this  instance,  as  in  others,  let  the  informed  and  im- 
partial reader  pronounce. 

At  the  close  of  the  note  above  mentioned,  the  Chap- 
lain begged  leave  to  add,t  "  that  the  fathers  of  the 


truth  of  this  religion,  by  Professor  Bullet,  Dean  of  the  University  of  Besancon, 
&c.  &c.  This  work  is  earnestly  recommended  to  all  those  who  wish  to 
satisfy  their  doubts  relating  to  the  system  of  Christianity. 

*  Address,  p.  92".  t  Letter,  p.  21. 


70 

second  council  of  Nice  confirm  the  opinion,  that 
Chris? s  body  in  Heaven  is  not  flesh  and  blood :  there- 
fore, even  supposing  bread  and  wine  to  be  changed 
into  his  body  and  blood,  they  cannot  become  his  body 
as  it  now  is  in  Heaven."  For  this  passage  he  quoted 
l'Abbe's  collection  of  the  councils.  (Tom.  6.  p.  541.) 
The  Rev.  Gentleman  tells  us,*  that  he  "  knows  not 
where  to  find  this  collection  in  America,  but  I  aver," 
says  he,  "  that  no  such  doctrine  was  delivered  or  en- 
tertained by  the  fathers  of  that  council ;  and  will, 
therefore,  without  fear  of  being  convicted  of  rashness, 
undertake  1o  say,  that  the  Chaplain  cannot  support 
what  he  has  here  advanced. — As  in  many  other  in- 
stances, so  likewise  in  this,  the  Chaplain  has  suffer- 
ed himself  to  be  misled  by  authors,  whom  I  hope  he 
will  deservedly  mistrust  for  the  time  to  come — their 
unfaithfulness  is  eminently  conspicuous  in  the  present 
instance."  It  must  give  pain  to  all  who  know  the 
Rev.  Gentleman,  to  behold  him  thus  battling  with  a 
shadow,  and  accusing  the  Chaplain  and  Protestant 
Writers,  of  opinions  which  never  entered  into  their 
heads  to  advance.  Does  the  quotation  from  the  coun- 
cil insinuate  in  the  most  distant  manner,  that  Christ 
had  no  true  body  upon  earth,  or  that  he  only  exhibited  the 
appearance  of  a  body  ?  The  Chaplain  will  aver,  that 
no  such  idea  is  held  out  in  his  letter,  or  by  any  au- 
thor whom  he  is  advised  to  mistrust.  All  that  the 
passage  cited  by  PAbbe  says,  is,  that  Christ's  body 
in  Heaven  is  not  flesh  and  blood.  This  opinion,  the 
Rev.  Gentleman  must  know,  was  entertained  by 
many  of  the  primitive  Christians.     The  fact  is  clear- 

*  Address,  p.  94. 


71 

ly  demonstrated  by  Blirnet  in  his  treatise  de  stain 
mortuorum  et  resurgentium ;  and  it  was  grounded  on 
this  passage  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  (xv.  50.) 
"  Now  this  I  say,  brethren,  that  flesh  and  blood  can- 
not inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,  neither  doth  corrup- 
tion inherit  incorruption."  Not  a  word  is  mentioned 
of  Christ's  human  body  previous  to  his  ascension. 
The  Chaplain,  therefore,  stands  acquitted  of  inaccu- 
racy, and  his  argument  on  this  head  is  as  formidable 
as  ever. 

The  doctrine  of  purgatory  is  another  discriminating 
tenet  of  the  Roman  church,  which  the  Chaplain  could 
not  discover  in  the  scriptures.  It  must  therefore  rest 
solely  upon  the  infallibility  of  this  church.*  He  in- 
stanced an  eminent  Roman  Catholic  writer,  asserting 
;t  that  the  Greeks  reject  this  tenet,  that  their  ancient 
doctors  seldom  or  never  mentioned  it,  and  that  the 
Latins  became  acquainted  with  it  only  by  degrees," 
(pedetentim.)^  He  found  some  great  divines  reject- 
ing texts  which  others  deemed  conclusive  in  favour 
of  this  doctrine,  and  discovered  no  plausible  counte- 
nance given  it  except  in  an  apochryphal  book  of  the 
Bible.  After  all  this  he  ventured  to  assert  that  this 
doctrine  is  not  contained  in  the  scriptures.  The 
Rev.  Gentleman  offers  nothing  to  invalidate  this  po- 
sition. He,  indeed,  refers  the  Chaplain  to  the  Catho- 
lic scripturist  for  authorities  to  support  this  tenet ;% 
and,  "  is  well  convinced,  that  the  prevailing  reason 
which  moved  the  compilers  of  the  English  Bible  to 
reject  the  books  of  Maccabees,  was  the  support  which 
they   observed   the  Catholic  doctrine  of  purgatory 

*  Letter,  p.  20.  f  Ibid  p.  21.  %  Address,  p.  99. 


72 

would  derive  from  it."  As  to  the  authorities  in  the 
Catholic  scripturist,  many  of  them  have  so  little  weight 
even  with  Roman  Catholic  divines,  that  they  can 
hardly  be  supposed  to  contain  much  intrinsic  evidence. 
With  regard  to  the  compilers  of  the  English  Bible, 
the  Chaplain  trusts  that  other  motives  can  be  offered 
for  their  rejecting  the  books  of  Maccabees  from  the 
canon  of  the  scriptures,  than  one  so  base  and  un- 
generous as  the  Rev.  Gentleman  suggests.  Is  he 
able  to  penetrate  into  the  hearts  of  these  learned 
compilers,  and  there  discover  the  secret  springs  of 
their  conduct  ?  After  the  most  mature  and  upright 
deliberation,  might  they  not  have  been  convinced, 
that  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  second  of  Peter 
and  of  James,  &c.  although  questioned  by  a  few  of 
the  ancient  fathers,  were  at  all  times  deemed  canoni- 
cal by  the  much  greater  part  of  Christians,  while  at 
the  same  time  they  saw  plainly  that  the  books  of 
Maccabees  were  ever  judged  apocryphal  by  the 
primitive  church  ?  Perpetuity  and  uniformity  of 
testimony  was  all  they  could  go  upon.  These  they 
found  vouching  for  the  authenticity  of  some  books, 
whilst  others  were  destitute  of  such  essential  sup- 
ports. Among  the  latter  are  these  books  of  the 
Maccabees.  Previous  to  the  council  of  Carthage,  St. 
Jerom  tells  us,  "  that  the  church  in  his  time,  read,  in- 
deed, these  books;  but  did  not  admit  them  among  the 
canonical  scriptures."*  "All  these,"  says  Rufinus. 
"  were  read  in  the  churches,  but  not  as  authorities 
for  proving  the  faith  :"t     And  after  the  same  coun- 

*  Legit  quidem  ecclesia,  sed  eos  inter  canonicas  scripturas  dob  recipit. 
In  lib.  Salom. 

t  Qua?  omnia  legi  quidem  in  ecclesiis  voluerunt,  non  tamen  profrrn  ad 
mrctomtatpm  ex  his  fidei  ronfirmandam.     Expos.  Symb. 


73 

cii,  St.  Gregory  excuses  himself  for  citing  the  books  of 
Maccabees,  "  although,"  says  he,  "  they  be  not  canoni- 
cal."* Thus,  notwithstanding  the  alleged  authority 
of  this  council,  and  of  Pope  Innocent,  we  find  these 
books  rejected  from  the  canon  of  scripture,  through 
every  age  and  every  country,  even  down  to  the  coun- 
cil of  Trent.  They  were  deemed  apocryphal  by  Ju- 
nilius  and  Primasius,  in  Africa,  by  Cassiodorus  and 
Gregory,  in  Italy,  by  Isidore  of  Seville,  in  Spain,  by 
Alcuin,  in  France,  by  Bede,  in  England,  by  Rabanus 
Maurus,  in  Germany.  Cajetan,  writing  to  Pope  Cle- 
ment Vll.f  declares  them  not  to  be  canonical.  Thus, 
the  agreement  of  Christian  writers  upon  this  matter, 
before  the  16th  century,  has  been  nearly  uniform ;  so 
that  among  all  the  modern  dogmas  of  the  council  of 
Trent,  this  has  the  least  to  boast  of,  from  uninterrupt- 
ed tradition.  Were  this  digression  entirely  foreign 
to  the  subject,  the  reader  would  still  pardon  it  as  an 
apology  for  the  very  learned  and  respectable  divines 
who  translated  the  English  Bible. 

The  Rev.  Gentleman  next  tells  the  Roman  Catho- 
lics of  America,!  "  t^la^  no  article  of  the  Christian 
belief  has  stronger  evidence  from  the  testimony  of 
the  early  fathers,  than  the  doctrine  of  purgatory. 
They  prove  incontestably  the  practice  of  praying  for 
the  dead  ;  they  assert  that  by  the  prayers  of  the  faith- 
ful in  this  life,  comfort  and  relief  is  obtained  for  those 
who  are   departed  out  of  it;  which  is  establishing  as 

*  De  qua  re  cavenda  non  inordinate  facimus,  si  ex  libris,  licet  non  canoni  ■ 
cis,  sed  tamen  ad  a?dificationem  ecclesiiw  editis,  testimonium  proferamu;;. 
X .  Greg.  Expos,  in  Job.  lib.  19.  cap.  17. 

t  Non  sunt  hi  libri  canonici,  hoc  est,  non  sunt  regulars  ad  firrmndtim  ev> 
«|uee  sunt  fidei.     Epistol.  dedieat.  ad  Clem.  VII. 

t  Address,  p.  ion, 

10 


74 

much  of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  as  we  are  obliged 
to  believe."  Are  Roman  Catholics  then  not  obliged 
to  believe,  that  purgatory  is  a  place  of  torment  and 
punishment  ?  Is  it  not  an  article  of  their  belief  that 
the  guilt  of  venial  sin,  and  the  temporal  punishment 
due  to  mortal,  are  done  away  by  the  torments  of  pur- 
gatory ?  What  says  the  most  authentic  catechism  of 
the  Roman  church,  published  under  the  sanction  of 
the  Pope,  in  consequence  of  an  express  decree  of  the 
council  of  Trent,  for  the  instruction  of  parish  priests  ? 
"  There  is  a  purgatory,"  that  is  to  say,  "  a  purgatory 
fire,  by  which  the  souls  of  the  pious  being  for  a  de- 
terminate time  tormented,  are  expiated  or  purged,  that 
an  entrance  into  their  eternal  kingdom  may  be  open- 
ed to  them."*  Now,  had  the  early  Greek  or  Latin 
Christians  any  idea  of  a  purgatory  like  this  ?  Nei- 
ther of  the  passages  alleged  by  the  Rev.  Gentleman, 
from  Cyril  and  Chrysostom,  throws  out  a  distant  hint 
of  any  such  thing.  That  the  ancient  Christians  com- 
memorated and  prayed  for  the  dead,  no  informed 
Protestant  ever  meant  to  deny.  But  it  does  not  fol- 
low, that  they  conceived  them  to  be  in  a  state  of  pur- 
gation or  punishment.  Because  we  pray  for  our  ab- 
sent friends,  must  we  therefore  believe  them  to  be 
tormented  and  miserable  ?  The  fact  is,  many  of  the 
ancient  fathers  imagined,  that  the  souls  of  the  depart- 
ed faithful  were  not  to  be  admitted  into  the  complete 
enjoyment  of  heaven,  until  the  general  resurrection 
— but  that  in  the  mean  time  they  expected  this  great 
event  in  the  bosom  of  Abraham,  in  a  state  of  tran- 
quillity and  rest,  capable  of  receiving  additional  hap- 

•    See  the  Roman  Catechism, 


75 

piness  from  the  supplications  of  their  pious  brethren 
upon  earth.  This  idea  laid  the  only  foundation  for 
praying  for  the  dead.  However  unwarranted  it  may 
be,  it  has  certainly  no  affinity  with  the  modern  doc- 
trine of  purgatory.  The  Chaplain  has  no  inclination 
to  load  his  page  with  voluminous  quotations.  No  oc- 
cupation requires  less  genius  or  more  labour  than 
that  of  a  compiler;  yet  he  cannot  forbear  instancing 
a  few  authorities,  that  place  the  ideas  of  the  early 
Christians  upon  this  subject  in  their  true  point  of 
view.  Such  an  article  of  church  history  will  be  in- 
teresting to  some  readers,  while  to  others  it  will  ap- 
pear at  least  a  matter  of  curiosity.  "  We  observe," 
says  the  ancient  author  of  tjie  commentaries  upon 
Job,  among  Origen's  works,*  "  the  memorials  of  the 
saints,  and  devoutly  keep  the  remembrance  of  our 
parents  and  friends  who  die  in  the  faith,  as  well  to 
rejoice  for  their  refreshment,  as  to  request  for  our- 
selves a  godly  consummation  in  the  faith that 

our  festivity  may  be  for  a  memorial  of  rest  to  the 
souls  departed, ....  and  to  us  may  become  a  sweet 
savour  in  the  sight  of  the  eternal  God."  St.  Cyprian, 
speaking  of  Laurence  and  Ignatius,  whom  he  ac- 
knowledges to  have  received  the  crown  of  martyr- 
dom, says,  "  We  offer  sacrifices  always  for  them, 
when  we  celebrate  the  passions  and  days  of  the  mar- 
tyrs with  an  anniversary  commemoration."f  St. 
Chrysostom,  discoursing  on  the  funeral  ordinances 
of  the  church,  writes  as  follows  :  "  Tell  me,  what  do 
the  bright  lamps  mean  ?  Do  we  not  accompany  them 
with  these  as  champions  ?     What  mean  the  hymns  ? 

*  Lib.  3.  Comment.  t  F.pisf.  34. 


7b 

Consider  what  thou  dost  sing  at  that  time.  Return, 
my  soul,  into  thy  rest;  for  the  Lord  hath  dealt  boun- 
tifully with  thee !  And  again :  thou  art  my  refuge 
from  the  affliction,  that  compasseth  me."* 

The  liturgy  used  in  the  church  of  Syria,  and  attri- 
buted to  St.  Basil,  has  these  words  :  "  Be  mindful,  O 
Lord,  of  them  who  are  dead  and  departed  out  of  this 
life,  and  of  the  orthodox  bishops  who  from  Peter  and 
James  the  apostles,  until  this  day,  have  clearly  pro- 
fessed the  right  word  of  faith  ;  and  namely  of  Igna- 
tius, Dyonisius,  Julius,  and  the  rest  of  the  saints  of 
worthy  memory."t  And  in  the  liturgy  ascribed  to 
the  apostles  we  read :  "  We  offer  unto  thee  for  all 
the  saints  who  have  pleased  thee  from  the  beginning 
of  the  world,  patriarchs,  prophets,  &c.  &c."J  In  the 
liturgies  of  the  churches  of  Egypt,  said  to  have  been 
written  by  St.  Basil,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  and  Cyril  of 
Alexandria,  we  meet  with  sentiments  entirely  similar. 
"  Be  mindful,  O  Lord,  of  thy  saints  :  vouchsafe  to 
remember  all  thy  saints  who  have  pleased  thee  from 
the  beginning,  &c.  and  especially  the  holy,  glorious, 
the  evermore  Virgin  Mary,  the  mother  of  God,  and 
St.  John  the  forerunner,  St.  Stephen,  &c."§  And 
again,  in  the  liturgy  of  the  church  of  Constantinople, 
attributed  to  St.  Chrysostom  :  "  We  offer  unto  thee 
this  reasonable  service  for  those  who  are  at  rest  in 
the  faith,  our  forefathers,  fathers,  patriarchs,  &c. 
&c."||     This  expression  of  offering  for  the  saints,  be~ 


*  In  Epist.  ad  Hebrceos  hom.  4. 
t  Anaphora  ab  Andr.  Maesio  ex  Syriaco  converse. 
\  Constitut.  Apost.  lib.  8.  cap.  12. 

i  Liturg.  iEgyp.  a  VictorioScialachex  Arabconvers.  p.  22.  47  et  60.  edit. 
August,  ami,  1604.  j|  Cbrys.  liturg.  Grsec. 


77 

coming  exceptionable  some  centuries  after,  was  thus 
modified  in  the  Latin  translation  by  Leo  Thuscus,/or 
the  patriarchs,  Sfc.  interceding  for  us  ;*  which  last  words 
are  not  to  be  found  in  the  Greek  original  now  before 
the  Chaplain.  Similar  sentiments  are  delivered  by 
St.  Ambrose  in  several  parts  of  his  writings,'!"  and  by 
the  other  fathers  who  have  treated  of  this  subject. 
In  a  word,  the  commemorations  for  the  dead,  which 
are  read  in  the  mass  at  this  day,  so  far  from  mention- 
ing any  place  of  torment,  suppose  on  the  contrary 
that  the  souls  who  are  prayed  for  are  already  in  a  state 
of  tranquillity  and  rest.  Let  this  one  prayer  suffice  for 
this  assertion.  "Remember,  O  Lord,  thy  servants  and 
handmaids,  who  have  gone  before  us  with  the  ensign 
of  faith,  and  sleep  in  the  sleep  of  peace.  To  them,  O 
Lord,  and  to  all  who  rest  in  Christ,  we  beseech  thee 
that  thou  wouldst  grant  a  place  of  refreshment,  light, 
and  peace."|  ^n  none  of  these  passages  will  the 
reader  be  able  to  discover  the  modern  doctrine  of 
purgatory.  He  will  therefore  hardly  assent  to  the 
Rev.  Gentleman's  position,  "  that  no  article  of  the 
Christian  belief,  has  stronger  evidence  from  the  testi- 
mony of  the  early  fathers."^ 

Another  point  of  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Catholic 


*  Chrys.  liturg.  Lat. 

t  De  obitu  Valent.  Imp.     Idem  de  obitu  Theodosii,  &c. 

%  Missale  Romanum.  In  the  mass  for  the  dead,  some  of  the  prayers  entreat, 
a  deliverance  from  hell — but  none  from  purgatory — because,  as  Bellarmine  ob- 
serves, u  the  church  prays  for  the  souls  in  purgatory,  that  they  may  not  be 
condemned  to  the  everlasting  pains  of  he'l  ;  not,  indeed,  because  it  is  not  cer- 
tain, that  they  are  not  to  be  condemned  to  these  pains  ;  but  because  God  is 
pleased,  that  we  should  pray  even  for  those  things  which  we  are  certainly  to 
receive."    Bell,  de  Purgat.  lib.  2.  cap.  5. 

8  Address,  p.  100. 


78 

church,  is  the  necessity  and  divine  institution  of  confes- 
sion. The  Chaplain  had  advanced  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  that  "  this  opinion  was  discussed  by  ancient  wri- 
ters with  great  freedom,  and  that  centuries  were  re- 
quisite to  settle  this  practice  in  its  present  form."* 
To  support  this  fact,  he  alleged  some  authorities, 
which  the  Rev.  Gentleman  cannot  possibly  set  aside. 
And,  indeed,  if  the  passages  from  Cardinal  Hugo, 
Gratian,  Alcuin,  and  Maldonatus  do  not  completely 
justify  the  Chaplain's  assertion,  words  can  have  no 
explicit  meaning,  but  what  may  yield  to  the  subtilty 
of  a  theological  quibble.  But  the  truth  is,  that  pre- 
vious to  the  Lateran  council,  in  1215,  it  was  the  opi- 
nion of  many  orthodox  divines,  that  confession  to  God 
alone  was  sufficient.  Thomas  Aquinas  and  Bonaven- 
ture  are  both  vouchers  for  this  fact.  "  The  master 
of  the  sentences,"  says  the  former,  "  and  Gratian,  axe 
of  this  opinion,  but  now,  since  the  decision  of  the 
church  under  Innocent  III.,  we  must  deem  it  hereti- 
cal.'^ The  date  of  this  tenet,  therefore,  can  be 
traced  no  higher  than  the  13th  century:  and  even 
since  that  period,  several  divines  have  not  regarded 
the  Lateran  decision  as  final.  Of  this  opinion  was 
the  commentator  upon  Gratian,  Scotus,  Panormita- 
nus,  Michael  of  Bologna,  &c,  not  to  mention  Erasmus, 
Rhenanus,  cardinal  Cajetan,  and  others  of  a  still 
more  recent  date.  So  that  the  learned  Richer  had 
good  reason  to  conclude,  and  the  Chaplain  with  him, 
u  that  internal  confession  is,  indeed,  of  divine  right, 
tout  that  outward  confession  is  no  more  than  an  eccle- 
siastical institution,"  not  enjoined  by  the  scripture, 

*  Letter,  p.  30.  t  la  4  dist.  17. 


79 

nor  regarded  as  essential  by  the  ancient  churches  of 
Christendom. 

The  Chaplain  trusts,  that  by  this  time  the  reader 
is  convinced,  "  that  the  Roman  church  regards  some 
doctrines  at  present  as  articles   of  faith,  which  for 
many    ages  were   debated   as  matters    of  opinion." 
The   Rev.  Gentleman  himself  admits  the  fact,*  yet 
lays  the  Chaplain  under  the  tedious  necessity  of  prov- 
ing it.     Now,  an  argument  arises  hence  against  the 
system  of  infallibility,  which  appears  unanswerable. 
The  solution  at  which  the  Rev.  Gentleman  labours 
from  the  52d  to  the  58th  page  of  his   Address,  can 
only  be  supported  on  the  idea  of  a  progressive  religion, 
He  allows,  that  doctrines  not  of  faith  yesterday,  may 
be  so  to-day,  because  evidence  of  their  divine  revela- 
tion may  be  had  to-day  which  was  wanted  yesterday. 
"  In  perilous  times,"   says  he,  "  the  church  unfolds 
the  doctrines"f  committed  to  her  charge,  which,  in 
proportion  as  they  are  thus  unfolded,  become  objects 
of  faith.    It  was  principally,  when  heresies  were  con- 
demned, that  the  opposite  Catholic  verity  was  esta- 
blished.    Yet,   previous  to  this  condemnation,  these 
errors   were    for   ages    adopted    by    the    faithful. — 
Where   was   infallibility  during  this    prevalence    of 
error  ?    Was  the  church  conscious  of  this  preroga- 
tive, or  did  she  neglect  to  exert  it  ?     If,  for  instance, 
the  opinion  of  sufficiency  of  confession  to  God  alone  was 
opposite  to  a  revealed  truth,  which  had  been  commit- 
ted to  her  by  Christ  or  his  apostles,  why  did  she  tole- 
rate it  for  more  than  twelve  centuries,  and  thus  neg- 
lect to  deliver  a  truth,  and  enforce  a  practice,  which 

*  Address,  p.  51.  i  Ibid,  p.  34. 


Christ  and  his  apostles  taught  to  be  essential  to  salva- 
tion ?  What  the  Rev.  Gentleman  remarks,*  of  the 
faithful  receiving  gradual  information  from  the  wri- 
tings of  the  apostles,  can  have  no  weight  with  those 
who  conceive  these  writings  to  have  been  inspired 
with  a  view  of  completing  the  Christian  system  of 
belief.  These  writings  being  finished,  and  their  au- 
thors dead,  the  gracious  scheme  of  revelation  was 
closed,  and  a  dreadful  wo  pronounced  against  those, 
who  should  add  to,  or  abridge  this  work  of  the  Al- 
mighty. (Ad  Galat.  i.  9.)  From  that  period  to  the 
present,  the  Christian  church  has  authority  in  contro- 
versies of  faith,  she  is  a  witness  and  keeper  of  holy  ivrit  :f 
when  her  decisions  are  supported  by  the  testimony 
of  antiquity  and  universal  consent,  it  would  be  equally 
rash  and  senseless  to  contest  them.  But  our  assent 
in  these  cases  rests  not  upon  any  infallible  authority. 
In  facts  of  an  historical  as  well  as  a  religious  nature, 
a  perpetual,  general,  and  uniform  testimony  is  fully 
sufficient  to  command  our  belief.  But  when  we  find 
a  particular  church  or  body  of  Christians  proposing 
doctrines  as  of  faith,  which  are  destitute  of  this  testi 
mony,  doctrines,  which,  for  many  ages,  men  of  sanctity 
and  erudition  did  not  conceive  to  be  essential,  and 
which  she  herself  chose  to  tolerate,  deeming  them  im- 
material ;  may  we  not  regard  the  infallibility  of  such 
a  church  as  chimerical,  and  her  pretensions  to  it  as 
the  principal  obstacle  to  the  removing  of  abuses 
which  have  darkened  the  pure  simplicity  of  the  gos- 
pel, and  rendered  Christianity  a  stumbling  block  to 
the  weak-minded,   and  a  scoff  to  the  philosopher  ? 

*  Address,  p.  55.  ;   Church  of  England's  Arti 


81 

The  Chaplain,  with  the  conviction  of  this  upon  his 
mind,  resolved  to  have  recourse  to  the  law  and  to  the 
testimony,  (Tsa.  viii.  20.)  Here  alone  is  infallibility 
to  be  met  with.  Let  the  church  adhere  to  these,  and 
she  shall  never  err.  Upon  these  alone  is  grounded 
the  Christian  Catholic  faith,  into  which  we  are  initia- 
ted at  our  baptism,  which  we  repeat  in  our  churches, 
and  profess  upon  our  death-beds.*  Here  is  that  pure, 
that  Catholic  belief  which  we  find  expressed  in  the 
apostles'  creed  ;  here  that  sacred  deposit  committed 
to  the  Christian  church,  which  she  is  commanded  to 
preserve,  but  not  authorized  to  alter.  "  The  church 
of  Christ,"  says  Vincent  of  Lerins,  "  being  a  diligent 
and  cautious  guardian  of  the  tenets  deposited  with 
her,  changes  nothing  in  them,  abridges  nothing,  adds 
nothing — but  earnestly  applies  herself  to  this  one 
thing,  that  by  discussing  ancient  matters  with  fideli- 
ty and  wisdom,  she  may  perfect  and  polish  such  as 
are  rude  and  unfinished,  establish  and  consolidate 
such  as  are  explicit  and  obvious,  and  preserve  such 
as  are  confirmed  and  defined."!  Thus  far  church 
authority  may  go,  and  no  farther.  It  is  not  allowed 
to  announce  new  doctrines  to  the  faithful,  but  only  to 
elucidate  such  as  may  appear  obscure,  to  offer  fresh 
arguments  to  such  as  seem  to  want  them  ;  it  merely 
determines  if  it  be  convenient  or  necessary  to  express 
some  doctrine  in  terms  more  explicit  and  intelligible.! 

*  It  may  be  asked  why  the  Chaplain  abandoned  the  Rornan  church,  if  her 
children  at  baptism  be  initialed  into  the  very  same  faith  which  Protestants 
profess  when  they  are  admitted  to  that  sacrament  ?  The  answer  is,  because 
many  other  doctrines  not  mentioned  nor  hinted  at  during  the  administration 
of  baptism  are  required  as  essential  terms  of  her  communion. 

t  Common,  cap.  32. 

%  Eadem  tamen  quae  didicisti  ita  doce,  ut  cum  dicas  nove  con  dicas  now.. 
Vine.  Lev,  Com.  cap.  27. 

11 


82 

Upon  this  principle  only  does  Vincent  defend  the  an- 
cient councils.  That  of  Nice,  says  he,  did  nothing 
more  than  recall* the  faithful  to  the  primitive  belief: 
ad  antiquum  jidem  a  novella  perfidid,  ad  antiquam  sanita- 
tem  a  novitatis  insania*  With  respect  to  the  Nova- 
tian  heresy,f  the  council  proceeded  on  the  same  lu- 
minous principle.  It  showed  their  doctrine  to  be 
opposite  to  this  primitive  article  of  the  creed,  7  believe 
the  forgiveness  of  sins.  The  rebaptization  of  infants 
was  a  point  of  discipline  it  had  a  right  to  pronounce 
upon.  And  the  forbidding  of  second  marriages  (or 
indeed  any  marriages  at  all)  had  already  been  stig- 
matized as  the  doctrine  of  devils.  (1  Tim.  4.)  Were 
the  Chaplain  at  leisure,  he  could  venture  to  prove, 
that  not  a  single  error  was  condemned  by  the  primi- 
tive church  but  what  directly  or  indirectly  ran  coun- 
ter to  this  creed.  The  Arians,  Socinians,  and  Unita- 
rians refuse  to  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  by  denying  his 
divinity  and  consubstantiality  with  the  Father :  on 
the  same  pretext,  the  Macedonians  would  not  believe 
in  the  Holy  Ghost :  the  Nestorians,  by  admitting  two 
persons  in  Christ,  denied  that  this  Man-God  was  born 
of  the  Virgin  Mary,  or  suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate  : 
the  Eutychians,  by  confounding  the  divine  and  human 
nature,  must  either  reject  this  article,  I  believe  in 
Jesus  Christ,  which  shows  him  to  be  God  ;  or  this,  he 
ivas  crucified,  dead,  and  buried,  which  proves  him  to  be 
man.  And  so  of  all  the  rest. — If,  besides  these  pri- 
mitive truths  delivered  in  the  Bible  and  abridged  in 
the  creed,  other  matters  were  at  times  deemed  suffi- 
cient to  exclude  men  from  Catholic  communion,  they 

*  Vhr.  Ler.  Comm.  cap.  7.  t  Address,  p.  110, 


83 

could  only  be  such  as  belonged  to  the  line  of  morality 
and  discipline,  to  which  church  authority  has  been 
always  judged  competent :  with  the  divine  truths  of 
religion  no  authority  must  meddle,  unless  it  be  to 
elucidate,  inculcate,  and  defend  them.  Such  as  are 
essential  must  be  obvious  and  simple,  being.mercifully 
calculated  for  the  ignorant  no  less  than  the  learned. 
They  who  reject  them  must  do  it  at  their  peril.  But, 
that  the  man  who  embraces  these  truths  in  their  na- 
tural meaning,  who  subscribes  the  Catholic  creeds  in 
their  utmost  extent,  and  assents  sincerely  to  every 
scriptural  doctrine,  may  still  "  admit  into  his  belief 
almost  every  sect  that  ever  deformed  the  face  of 
Christianity,"*  is  one  of  those  lofty  assertions  that 
thrills  the  uninformed  mind  with  reverential  horror, 
whilst,  with  a  man  of  tolerable  understanding  and 
conscious  integrity,  its  sole  effect  is  a  transient  smile 
of  indifference. 

The  Rev.  Gentleman  is  unwilling  to  allow  the 
Chaplain's  claim  to  the  appellation  of  Catholic,  be- 
cause, to  be  so,  "  he  must  belong,"  says  St.  Augustin, 
"  to  that  church  which  is  Catholic,  and  which  is  call- 
ed Catholic  not  only  by  her  own  children,  but  by  all 
her  enemies. — Will  the  Chaplain,"  he  asks,  "  find  this 
characteristic  in  his  new  religion  ?"f  The  Rev. 
Gentleman  knows  well,  that  Protestants  esteem  and 
call  themselves  Catholics.  For  an  enemy  to  with- 
hold from  them  this  appellation  is  a  poor  plea  to  pre- 
scribe against  right.  Will  the  Rev.  Gentleman  own 
himself  to  have  been  a  rebel,  because  for  more  than 
eight  years  he  was  pronounced  to  be  so  by  the  ene- 

*  Address,  p.  111.  [hid.  p.  106. 


84 

mies  of  his  country  ?  As  to  the  Chaplain's  new  reli- 
gion, were  it  really  such,  it  would  doubtless  exclude 
his  claim  to  the  title  he  assumes.  But  he  trusts,  a 
religion  can  hardly  be  called  new,  which  rests  entire- 
ly upon  the  foundations  of  primitive  revelation,  which 
can  trace  all  its  tenets  to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony, 
and  is  so  jealous  of  these  divine  sources,  as  to  suffer 
no  vague  and  arbitrary  traditions  to  mix  their  sullied 
waters  with  their  original  fountain  :  A  religion  which 
includes  the  daily  profession  of  believing  a  Catholic 
church :  a  religion  which  no  one  but  a  Catholic  can 
profess,  as  he  alone  adheres  solely  to  the  ancient  and 
universal  belief.  "  For,"  says  Vincent  oi  Lerins,  "  he 
is  a  real  and  genuine  Catholic,  who  . . .  remaining 
fixed  and  unshaken  in  faith,  is  determined  to  hold  and 
believe  that  only,  which  he  shall  discover  to  be  the 
universal  and  ancient  doctrine  of  the  Catholic 
church."*  The  Rev.  Gentleman  finds  that  the  Chap- 
lain also  is  acquainted  with  Vincent  of  Lerins.  He 
had  read  him  over  previously  to  the  friendly  advice 
contained  in  the  address.t  If,  in  the  eleventh  chapter, 
he  appear  to  contradict  the  general  principle  of  his 
work,  which  goes  to  prove,  that  we  are  not  obliged  to 
believe  any  doctrine,  which  was  not  always  believed  by  the 
Catholic  church,  to  them  it  belongs  to  vindicate  his 
consistency,  whose  cause  may  stand  most  in  need  of 
his  support :  his  authority  can  be  no  further  service- 
able to  the  Chaplain,  than  to  show  what  his  idea  of 
a  Catholic  was,  and  that,  were  he  living  at  this  day, 
he  would  hardly  have  rejected  a  plea  to  Catholicity 
founded  upon  his  own  definition  of  it :  "  to  this,"  says 

•  Common,  cap.  25.  +  Page  114. 


85 

he,  "  we  must  chiefly  attend,  that  we  maintain  what 
every  where  and  always  has  been  believed  by  all:  for 
this  is  truly  and  properly  Catholic,  as  the  very  word 
imports  and  reason  declares  :"*  And  again,  "  It 
never  was  lawful,  it  is  not  lawful  now,  nor  will  it 
ever  be  so,  to  propose  any  thing  to  Christian  Catho- 
lics, which  they  had  not  received  before."t  The 
Chaplain,  therefore,  still  humbly  confides,  that  by 
adhering  solely  to  this  universal  belief,  he  is  justly 
entitled  to  the  appellation  of  Catholic,  and  that  he 
"  does  not  embrace  a  new  religion,  however  he  may 
discard  some  doctrines  which  at  different  periods  of 
time  have  been  engrafted  upon  the  old  one." 

But,  with  the  Rev.  Gentleman  and  all  Roman 
Catholics,  a  separation  from  this  church  necessarily 
involves  the  idea  of  novelty.  Where  was  your  religion 
before  Luther?  is  the  triumphant  question  of  every 
smatterer  in  controversy.  Where  was  your  face  before 
it  was  washed?  was  the  witty  counter-question  of  a 
Protestant  humorist.  The  truth  is,  the  Chaplain's 
church  was  always  where  it  actually  subsists ;  that  is, 
in  every  part  of  the  world,  where  the  ancient  found- 
ations and  the  common  principles  of  faith  were  main- 
tained, upon  the  profession  of  which  men  were  admit- 
ted by  baptism  into  the  church  of  God.  There  he 
doubts  not  but  our  Lord  has  his  subjects  and  he  his 
fellow  servants — for  the  church  to  which  he  belongs 
introduces  no  new  faith — she  is  no  new  church. 
*What  in  ancient  times  was  deemed  to  be  truly  and 
properly  Catholic,  namely,  what   was  believed  every 

*  Contra  haeres.  cap.  3. 

+  Annunciare  ergo  aliquid  Christianis  Catholicis  prater  id  quod  acceperunt 
aunquam  licuit,  nusquam  licet,  nunquam  licebit.     Comm.  cap.  14. 


86 

where,  always,  and  by  all,  has  in  succeeding  ages  been 
constantly  preserved,  and  is  at  this  day  adopted  en<= 
tirely  by  this  church.  If  we  should  take  a  view  at 
present  of  the  several  Christian  societies  which  have 
acquired  any  considerable  extent  upon  the  globe,  of 
the  reformed  and  Roman  churches  in  Europe  and 
America,  of  the  churches  of  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  in 
the  south,  of  the  Greek  and  other  Christian  societies 
in  the  east ;  if  we  should  set  aside  the  points  in  which 
they  mutually  dissent,  and  collect  together  the  other 
articles  in  which  they  generally  agree,  we  should 
goon  discover  a  code  of  doctrine  so  genuine  and  Ca- 
tholic, that  being  joined  to  a  suitable  line  of  conduct, 
it  would  be  sufficient  to  conduct  us  to  everlasting 
salvation.  These  are  the  only  truths  that  bear  the 
stamp  of  universality — From  these  alone  can  the 
church  be  called  Catholic — These  she  must  ever  re- 
tain, or  she  forfeits  her  title.  The  enemy  may, 
indeed,  sow  his  tares  among  these  original  tenets  ; 
nay,  we  are  told,  (Matth.  xiii.  24,  25.)  that  he  may 
sow  them  in  the  Lord's  field,  and  among  the  Lord^s  wheat. 
They,  therefore,  who  have  been  employed  in  de- 
stroying these  weeds,  in  separating  the  Lord's  good 
grain  from  the  chaff,  cannot  be  said  to  have  substitu- 
ted a  new  field,  or  changed  the  nature  of  the  ancient 
grain.  The  field  is  the  same,  but  weeded  now,  un- 
weeded  then — the  grain  is  the  same,  but  winnowed 
now,  unwinnowed  then. — Every* church  professing 
these  universal  truths  must  be  Catholic.  To  her 
belong  the  promises  of  Christ,  the  appeals  of  antiqui- 
ty, and  the  encomiums  of  the  fathers.  She  suffers  no 
monopoly  of  her  extensive  prerogatives ;  but  embra- 


87 

ces  every  Christian  who  adheres  to  the  foundations 
upon  which  she  is  built. 

To  this  Christian  Catholic  church  the  Chaplain 
trusts  he  belongs.  Happily  for  him,  no  society  of 
Christians  can  annul  his  righf  to  this  sacred  commu- 
nion; among  the  various  churches,  into  which  Chris- 
tians are  divided,  he  may  join  that  which  best  suits 
his  ideas  of  church  government,  and  which  appears  to 
him  to  be  the  farthest  removed  from  philosophical  in- 
difference on  the  one  hand,  and  fanaticism  on  the 
other — but  in  the  great  and  essential  points  of  faith 
he  shall  ever  consider  himself  a  member  of  all  whose 
religion  is  that  of  the  Bible  only.  Here  the  Chaplain 
has  found  a  resting-place,  which  he  never  means  to 
abandon.  If  Roman  Catholics  conceive  a  double  foun- 
dation more  secure,  in  God's  name  let  them  build  their 
religion  upon  it :  no  man  will  dispute  their  right  so  to 
do ;  but  let  them,  at  the  same  time,  bear  cheerfully 
with  those,  who  are  satisfied  that  their  faith  is  safe 
upon  one. 

The  Rev.  Gentleman  is  surprised  at  the  quotation 
from  St.  Cyprian,*  which  discountenances  all  autho- 
rity in  matters  of  faith,  except  that  of  the  gospel,  the 
epistles,  or  acts  of  the  apostles.  "  No  wonder,"  says  he,| 
Ki.  that  St.  Cyprian,  while  engaged  in  the  errors  of  the 
Donatists,  should  speak  their  language  ...  St.  Augus- 
tin,  lib.  5.  cap.  23.  de  bap.  against  the  Donatists,  par- 
ticularly refutes  the  writing  now  objected  out  of  St 
Cyprian;  and  it  is  wonderful  indeed  if  the  Chaplain 
did  not  discover  this  in  the  very  place  from  which  F 
presume  he  copied  his  objection."  Here  the  Rev. 
Gentleman  confesses  that  Cyprian  was  unacquainW 

*  Letter,  p.  38.  t  AMre«,  p.  113. 


88 

with  the  divine  authority  of  unwritten  tradition.  Mr. 
Rushworth,  a  Roman  Catholic  controvertist,  had  ac- 
knowledged this  long  before.*  He  should  have  pro- 
ved, however,  that  this  learned  martyr  retracted  his 
opinion,  before  he  wondered  at  the  Chaplain's  omit- 
ting the  refutation  of  it  penned  by  St.  Augustin. 
When  the  primitive  fathers  deliver  contrary  opinions, 
we  are  certainly  at  liberty  to  adopt  that  which  ap- 
pears most  rational.  But  St.  Augustin  himself  only 
combated  this  sentiment  of  Cyprian,  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  rebaptization  of  infants,  which  he  must  have 
regarded  as  belonging  rather  to  church  discipline 
than  to  faith  ;  for,  with  respect  to  the  latter,  no  man 
was  a  stronger  advocate  for  the  all-sufficiency  of  the 
scriptures.  He  tells  us,  indeed,  "  that  he  would  not 
believe  the  gospel,  if  the  authority  of  the  Catholic 
church  did  not  move  him  thereunto."  In  this  senti- 
ment the  Chaplain  willingly  acquiesces,  because  he 
believes  the  church  to  be  the  keeper  and  depositary 
of  the  scriptures ;  and  because,  from  the  perpetual 
and  uniform  consent  of  all  the  churches,  the  credibili- 
ty of  their  canonical  authority  must  arise.  But  the 
church  derives  from  hence  no  plea  to  infallibility,  any 
more  than  our  judges  or  courts  of  judicature,  by  de- 
termining what  is  the  fixed  law  of  the  land,  and  the 
only  books  that  contain  it,  can  arrogate  to  themselves 
so  mighty  a  privilege. 

The  Chaplain  asks,  (and  he  does  it  with  St.  Hila- 
ry, whom  the  Rev.  Gentleman  passes  by  without  no- 
tice,) "  where  is  the  deficiency  and  obscurity  of  the 
scriptures  ?"  That  is,  in  matters  fundamental  and 
necessary.     For,  were,  they   really   deficient,   how 

*  Dial.  3.   pert.  13. 


89 

would  they  be  able  to  make  us  wise  unto  salvation  ?  as 
the  apostle  expressly  assures  us  they  are.  (2  Tim. 
3.)  Nor  is  any  attempt  made  to  do  away  the  autho- 
rity of  Cyril,  lib.  12  in  Joan.,  who  tells  us,  that  "  all 
is  written  which  the  writers  thought  sufficient  for 
faith  and  morality."  Was  the  credit  of  this  father 
entitled  to  special  indulgence,  because  on  another 
subject  his  authority  is  deemed  unanswerable?*  But 
it  was  indeed  needless  to  take  notice  of  a  line  or  two, 
if  "  most  of  the  fathers  have  delivered  their  opinions 
of  the  insufficiency  and  obscurity  of  scripture,  not  in 
fragments  of  a  sentence,  but  treating  professedly  and 
fully  on  this  very  subject"!  It  has  been  the  Chap- 
lain's misfortune  never  to  meet  with  any  of  these  nu- 
merous treatises.  On  the  contrary,  all  the  fathers^ 
whom  he  has  consulted  on  this  head,  repeatedly  ac- 
knowledge the  sufficiency  of  scripture  in  whatever 
belongs  to  faith  and  morality.  If  in  other  passages  of 
their  writings  they  deny  this  sufficiency,  we  should 
do  well  to  discard  their  authority  altogether,  and  be 
influenced  only  by  our  sentiments,  our  reason,  and  the 
Bible.  However,  the  venerable  writers  of  antiquity 
are  too  explicit  on  this  matter  to  labour  under  a  simi- 
lar reproach.  The  few  following  passages  will  suffice  to 

ascertain  their  notions  on  this  subject "  The  holy 

scriptures  given  by   the  inspiration   of  God,  are  of 

themselves  sufficient  to  the  discovery  of  truth."J 

"  The  things  which  we  find  not  in  the  scripture,  how 

can   we   use   them  ?"§ "  It  is  well  that  thou  art 

content   with   the    things    that    are    written."|| — In 


•  Address,  p.  88.  t  Address,  p.  114. 

%  St.  Athan.  contra  Gentes.     i  St.  Ambros.  offic.  lib.  1,  cap.  23 

||  Hil.  lib.  3.  de  Trin. 

12 


90 

another  place  St.  Hilary  commends  the  Emperor 
Constantius  for  "  desiring  the  faith  to  be  ordered  only 
according  to  those  things  that  are  written."*  "  Be- 
lieve the  things  that  are  written,"  says  St.  Basil,  "  the 
things  that  are  not  written  seek  not.f  ...  It  is  a  mani- 
fest falling  from  the  faith,  and  a  sign  of  arrogance, 
either  to  reject  any  point  of  those  things  that  are 
written,  or  to  bring  in  any  of  those  things  that  are 
not  written."!  Gregory  of  Nyssen,  brother  to  St. 
Basil,  lays  it  down  as  a  principle,  "  which  no  man 
should  contradict,  that  the  truth  must  be  acknow- 
ledged in  that  only  which  exhibits  the  seal  of  scrip- 
ture testimony."§ "  As  we  deny  not  those  things 

that  are  written,  so  we  reject  those  things  that  are 
not  written."||  And  again  :  "  That  which  has  no  au- 
thority from  scripture  is  as  easily  discarded  as  it  is 

advanced."H "  In  those  particulars,"  says  St.  Au- 

gustin,  "  which  are  clearly  set  down  in  the  scriptures, 
all  those  things  are  found  which  comprehend  faith  and 

direction  of  life."** And  again  :  "  whatsoever  ye 

hear  from  hence,  (the  holy  scriptures,)  let  that  relish 
well  with  you  ;  whatsoever  is  without  them   reject, 

lest  ye    wander   in   a    cloud."ff And  in  another 

place  :  "  All  those  things  which  in  times  past  our  an- 
cestors have  recorded  as  done  to  mankind,  and  have' 
delivered  down  to  us,  all  those  things  also  which  we  see 
and  deliver  to  our  posterity,  so  far  as  they  belong  to 
the  investigation    and  support  of  true  religion,  the 

*  Ilil.  lib.  2.  ad  Constan.  Aug-. 

f-  Basil  hom.  29.  advers.  calumniantes  S.  Trinitat. 

|  Idem  de  fide. 

$  Greg.  Nyss.  dialog,  de  anima  ct  resur.  torn,  l.edit.  Graeco-Lat.  p.  639- 

j|  Hieronymus  advers.  Helvid.  If  Idem  in  cap.  23.  Matth, 

*  Dc  doctr.  Christiana  lib.  2,  cap.  9.  tt  Lib.  de  pastor,  cap.  11. 


91 

holy  scripture  has  not  passed  over  in  silence/'* — ~ 
It  remains  to  say  a  word  or  two  of  a  passage  to  the 
same  effect,  which  the  Chaplain  in  his  letter  cited 
from  St.  Chrysostom.  In  Matth.  c.  24,  horn.  49.  It  is 
not  in  his  power  to  have  recourse  to  the  works  of 
this  father.  And  as  the  Rev.  Gentleman  says,t  he 
has  the  fullest  evidence  before  him  that  the  passage  is 
not  genuine,  but  extracted  from  a  work  of  no  credit, 
supposed  to  be  written  in  the  Q>th  century,  entitled,  the  un 
finished  work  on  Matthew  ;  the  Chaplain  will  readily 
acknowledge  his  mistake,  and  yet,  perhaps,  ?wt  expose 
himself  to  a  well-grounded  imputation  of  unpardonable 
negligence.'^  For,  in  the  first  place,  the  passage  is 
certainly  published  among  the  works  of  Chrysostom. 
and  therefore  it  was  very  natural  to  suppose  it  was 
his  :  Secondly,  Gratian,  the  great  canonist,  frequently 
cites  St.  Chrysostom  as  the  author  of  this  unfinished 
work.§  Thirdly,  Bellarmine  himself  does  not  seem 
quite  decided  on  this  point — He  only  says,  "This 
work  does  not  appear  to  be  Chrysostoni's  ;  however,  in 
other  respects,  it  is  a  learned  book,  and  by  no  means 
to  be  despised.  .  .  It  is,  therefore,  probable,  that  the  au- 
thor of  it  was  a  Catholic,  but  that  his  work  was  cor- 
rupted by  the  Arians."||  If  this  apology  be  not  suf- 
ficient to  wipe  away  the  reproach  of  a  want  of  impar- 
tial diligence,  and  the  disrepute  of  alleging  the  authority 
ef  Chrysostom  so  erroneously. ,11  the  Chaplain  will  par- 


*  Epist.  42.  t  Address,  p.  61.  t  Address,  ibidem. 

}  Plurimis  in  locis  Gratianus  citat  Chrysostomum  pro  auctore  operis  im* 
■perfecti.     Bell,  de  Scrip.  Eccles.  p.  321. 

||  Non  videturesse  Chrysostomi  .  .  .  quamvis  alioqui  liber  sit  doctus  et 
minime  spernendus  .  .  .  proinde  credibile  est  auctorem  fussse  catholicum, 
3ed  opus  illius  ab  Arianis  esse  depravatum.     Id.-'in  ibid.  p.  1(51 . 

IF  Address,  p.  62. 


*J2 

don  a  triumph  at  this  slight  inaccuracy,  as  it  is  the 
only  one  pointed  out  in  the  Address. 

The  Chaplain  has  now  to  thank  the  Rev.  Gentle- 
man for  the  important  advice  with  which  he  closes 
his  Address.     Had  it  come,  however,  from  any  other 
quarter,  it  would  have  been  regarded  as  an  insult, 
and  treated  as  such.     It  would  have  appeared  a  pre- 
meditated design  "  to  misinform,  and  to  sow  in  minds 
so  misinformed   the   seeds   of  religious  animosity."* 
But  the  Chaplain  will  not  harbour  a  suspicion  of  such 
intentions  in  a  man  whom  he  cherishes  with  all  the 
ardour  of  friendship.     Yet   he  cannot  help   thinking 
that  the  Rev.  Gentleman   has   misapplied  St.  Chry- 
sostoni's  advice,  to  his  case.    For  did  the  monk  Theodo- 
rus  enter  into  his  engagements  under  the  sanction  of 
an  authority  which  he  afterwards  thought  himself  at 
liberty  to  discard  ?    Did  he  know,  when  he  promised 
to   lead   a  single  life   as  a   monk,  that  the  bishop  of 
Rome  could  at  any  time  release  him  from  this  vow, 
and  permit  him  to  marry  the  beautiful  Hermione  ? 
Did  this  bishop  actually  do  so  ?    Did  he  annul  all  his 
monastic  engagements  ?   Was  this  monk  ever  promo- 
ted to  the  order  of  subdeaconship,  at   which    time 
only  the  law  of  celibacy  is  hinted  to  the  regular  cler- 
gy ?    Did  he  conceive  this  exhortation  of  the  bishop 
during  that  ceremony,  castiiatem  servare  oportet,  you 
must  live  chastlyrf  to  imply  a  solemn  vow  never  to 
marry  ?    Or,  if  he  viewed  it  in  this  light,  could  he 
still  be  bound  by  this  point  of  discipline,  after  the  au- 
thority  enacting  it  ceased   to   exist  in    his    regard  ? 
When  these  several  questions  can  be  answered  in  the 

Addrcfs,  p.  1W.  t  Rit.  Rom* 


98 

affirmative,  then  may  a  parallel  be  drawn  between 
this  monk  and  the  Chaplain.    Moreover,  let  the  Rev. 
Gentleman  inform  us  whether  a  vow  of  celibacy  be  a 
stronger  engagement  or  contract  with  Almighty  God, 
than  a  vow  of perpetual  poverty  and  obedience  :  Let 
him  tell  us,  why  one  is  more  independent  of  the  disci- 
pline of  any  binding  power  than   the  other — Why,  one 
more  than  the  other,  cannot  be  released  but  by  God's  re- 
linquishing his  right  to  exact  a  rigorous  compliance  with 
the  obligation  of  it*     The  begging  friars  imagine  that 
a  solemn  renunciation  of  all  property  is  the  height  of 
perfection,  whilst  the  vow  of  obedience  was  chiefly  pre- 
conized  by  the  Jesuits.     Yet,  by  a  dispensation  from 
papal  authority,  thousands  of  both  have  been  releas- 
ed from  their  most  solemn  vows,  and  restored  to  the 
enjoyment  of  property  and  freedom.     Among  these  is 
the  Rev.  Gentleman  himself,  and  his  clerical  brethren 
in  America.     After  renewing  twice  every  year,  and 
oftener,  the   solemn  vows,  by  which  they  renounce 
their  property  and  their  liberty,  each  of  them,  with- 
out scruple,  now   possesses,  inherits,  enjoys,  and  dis- 
poses of  the  goods  of  this  world,  and  acknowledges 
no   longer   the  spiritual  control  of  a  superior.     The 
same  dispensing  authority  can  at  any  time  restore  to 
them  the  disposal  of  their  persons,  and  allow  them  to 
marry.     Wherefore,  to  urge   that  the  sanctity  of  reli- 
gion is  interested  iti  the  performance  of  an  engagement, 
entered  into   under  an  authority  which  at  any  time 
can  annul  it,  is  making  that  sanctity  to  depend  upon 
the  caprice  of  an  intriguing  court,  or  the  views  of  an 
artful  and  temporizing  pontiff:  (Add.  p.  20,  note.)  and 

'  Address,  p    119. 


94 

seriously  to  plead  for  the  obligation  of  ritual  ties, 
when  the  power  that  enacts  and  dissolves  them  is 
no  more,  is  to  nourish  the  prejudices  of  the  uninform- 
ed, to  bewilder  the  argument,  and  perpetuate  the 
spirit  of  illiberal  cavil . . .  The  passage  cited  from  the 
book  of  Deuteronomy,  with  which  the  Rev.  Gentleman 
concludes  his  address,  is  calculated  to  leave  these  im- 
pressions on  the  mind.  But  the  reader  will  recol- 
lect that  all  Roman  Catholic  divines  maintain  in  prac- 
tice, "  that  any  vow  upon  certain  occasions  may  be 
lawfully  rescinded.  Their  bishops  may  dispense 
with  many,  the  pope  with  all.  Nay,  the  faculties 
which  are  granted  to  the  missionaries  in  England, 
empower  them  to  dispense  with,  for  a  reasonable  cause,  and 
change,  all  simple  vows,  excepting  those  of  continency  and 
religion,  which  are  reserved  to  Rome."  (Essay  on 
Celib.  p.  184.)  Wherefore,  as  the  Chaplain  means 
to  have  no  business  with  Rome,  he  shall  take  the  li- 
berty of  judging  for  himself  in  this  particular.  It  is 
really  painful  to  be  thus  pleading  the  cause  of  human 
nature  and  its  unalienable  rights,  in  the  eighteenth  cen- 
tury, on  the  continent  of  America:  rights  interwoven 
with  the  economy  of  our  nature,  calculated  to  pro- 
mote the  welfare  of  the  individual,  and  the  great  pur- 
poses of  society.  Rights  which  mankind  are  not  au- 
thorized to  sport  with,  any  more  than  with  the  principle 
of  self-preservation  or  life.  The  recovery  of  these  es- 
sential prerogatives  of  humanity,  will  be  deemed  a 
substantial  blessing,  by  every  liberal  person;  if,  how- 
ever, it  provoke  any  censure  from  his  former  con- 
nexions, the  Chaplain,  having  once  appealed  to  their 
candour  and  charity,  shall  continue  to  treat  it  with 
pity  and  indifference.    JEquo  animo  audienda  sunt  m* 


95 

jperitorum  convicia,  et  ad  honesta  vadenti  contemncndus 
est  ipse  contemptus.     Seneca. 

Before  the  Chaplain  takes  a  final  leave  of  the  pub- 
lic on  these  matters,  which  he  very  sincerely  wishes 
to  do  at  present,  he  must  beg  its  attention  for  a  mo- 
ment to  the  most  material  accusation  thrown  out  in 
the  address.  He  is  accused  of  "  imputing  doctrines 
to  the  Roman  Catholics  foreign  to  their  belief,  and 
having  a  natural  tendency  to  embitter  against  them 
ihe  minds  of  their  fellow  citizens."  He  is  accused  of 
"  misinforming,  and  of  sowing  in  minds  so  misinformed 
the  seeds  of  religious  animosity."  (Add.  p.  118.) 
The  Rev.  Gentleman  could  not  have  wounded  his 
former  friend  in  a  more  tender  part.  At  such  an  at- 
tack he  also  felt  an  anguish  too  keen  for  description — for 
such  accusations  coming  from  him,  must  extinguish 
every  spark  of  good  will  towards  the  Chaplain,  Avhich 
may  still  be  lurking  among  his  former  connexions, 
They  go  to  alienate  the  esteem  of  his  recent  friends, 
by  holding  him  up  as  a  disturber  of  the  public  peace, 
as  an  enemy  to  his  country.  Did  the  Rev.  Gentle- 
man perceive  the  natural  tendency  of  such  a  censure, 
or  could  he  think  the  Chaplain  deserved  it  ?  The 
Rev.  Gentleman  might  have  known  him  better. 
There  was  a  time  when  he  honoured  him  with  his 
confidence  and  esteem,  when  he  condescended  to  be- 
come the  depositary  of  his  little  concerns.  At  an  ear- 
ly period  of  life,  he  kindly  took  him  by  the  hand,  and 
led  Jiim  through  the  paths  of  honour  and  of  virtue  : 
his  lessons  were  always  those  of  friendship  and  of 
wisdom  ;  from  these  flowed  that  sentiment  of  universal 
benevolence  which  the  Chaplain  deems  the  most  pre- 
cious he  possesses,     Could  the  Rev.  Gentleman  be 


96 

ignorant  of  the  growth  of  a  plant,  which  he  himself 
had  nourished  in  the  heart  of  his  friend,  and  which 
he  must  have  observed  to  flourish  there,  with  a  luxu- 
riancy  nearly  approaching  to  enthusiasm.  .  .  It  was 
this  sentiment  that  banished  every  word  from  his  let- 
ter which  could  wound  the  feelings  of  the  most  deli- 
cate Roman  Catholic :  this  made  him  distinguish  be- 
tween their  persons  and  opinions,  and  prevented  a 
dereliction  of  some  of  the  latter,  from  impairing  the 
social  affections  which  he  cherished  for  the  former. 
Far  from  wishing  to  sow  the  seeds  of  religious  animosity 
in  the  minds  of  his  countrymen,  he  would  make  any 
sacrifice  to  eradicate  them  for  ever  :  far  from  wishing 
to  embitter  the  minds  of  their  fellow  citizens  against  the 
Roman  Catholics  of  America,  he  is  proud  to  see  them 
elevated  to  that  equal  respectability,  to  which,  as 
zealous  supporters  of  their  country's  freedom,  and  as 
a  Christian  society,  they  are  essentially  entitled  :  far 
from  harbouring  any  religious  animosity  or  narrow- 
ness of  sentiment,  he  only  wishes  for  opportunities  to 
show  how  much  he  despises  them :  far  from  aban- 
doning the  cause  of  virtue  and  religion,  as  the  Ad- 
dress seems  to  insinuate,  (p.  117.)  he  means  to  exert 
his  slender  abilities  and  consummate  the  course  of  his 
ministry  in  the  service  of  both — thrice  happy,  if  the 
profession  of  the  common  principles  of  Christianity, 
and  a  perfect  union  of  heart,  could  be  deemed  suffi- 
cient by  the  Rev.  Gentleman,  to  perpetuate  their  con- 
nexion in  so  noble  a  pursuit.  Such  are  the  immuta- 
ble sentiments  of  the  Chaplain.  Whether  his  letter, 
or  this  reply,  tend  to  counteract  or  confirm  them,  if. 
belongs  to  the  candid  reader  to'  determine. 

THE  F.M>. 


A  SHORT  ANSWER 


A  TRUE  EXPOSITION 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH 

TOUCHING  THE 

SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE, 

WITH  THE 

GROUNDS  ON  WHICH  THIS  DOCTRINE  IS  FOUNDED," 

CONTAINED  IN 

AN  APPENDIX 

TO 

THE  CATHOLIC    QUESTION 

DECIDED  IN  THE  CITY  OF  NEW-YORK,  IN  JULY,   1813. 


BY  CHARLES  H.  WHARTON,  D.  D. 

Rector  of  St.  Mary's  Church,  Burlington,  N.  J. 


Who  is  a  God  like  unto  thee,  that  pardoneth  iniquity  ?    Mich.  vii.  18. 

I  said,  I  will  confess  my  sins  unto  the  Lord  ;  and  so  thou  forgavest  the  wickedness  of  my  sin. 

Ps,  xjm  1. 6. 
And  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  began  to  reason,  saying,  Who  is  this  which  speaketh  blasphe- 
mies ?  Who  can  forgive  sins  but  God  alone?    Luke  v.  21. 
•'  Non  potest  hoc  cuiquam  hominuin  cum  Christo  esse  commune  ut  peccata  condonet." 
"  No  man  can  have  this  in  common  with  Christ,  that  he  may  forgive  sins." 

St.  Ambros.  epist.  79.  nd  Studium 


NEW- YORK : 

REPUBLISHED  BY  DAVID  I.ONGWORTH,  NO.    11    PARK 
Clayton  &  Kingsland,  Printer*. 

1817 


TO 

THE  RIGHT  REVEREND  THE  BISHOPS. 

THE 

REVEREND  THE  CLERICAL, 

AND 

THE  GENTLEMEN  LAY  DEPUTIES 

OF 

THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH, 

#  IN 

GENERAL  CONVENTION  ASSEMBLED, 

THIS  ANSWER 

IS  RESPECTFULLY  INSCRIBED, 
BY  THEIR  AFFECTIONATE  HUMBLE  SERVANT  AND  BROTHER, 

THE  AUTHOR. 


A  SHORT  ANSWER 


At  a  time  when  the  spirit  of  religious  controversy 
aeemed  to  be  dormant  in  our  land — when  the  different 
Christian  societies  were  convinced  of  the  delicate  pro- 
priety of  confining  the  enforcement  of  their  peculiar 
tenets  within  the  pale  of  their  own  communions — when 
the  few  theological  publications  now  circulating  among 
us  were   labouring  to  inculcate  the  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  our  common  Christianity,  and  on  them  to 
erect  a  goodly  system  of  mutual  forbearance,  harmo- 
ny, and  love — the  advocates  of  evangelical  charity 
beheld,  with  considerable  regret,  the  appearance  of 
a  pamphlet  calculated  to  diminish  the  influence  and 
disturb  the   serenity  of  this  heavenly  temper.     Had 
the  publisher  of  the  Catholic  Question  been  satisfied 
with  communicating  to  us  the  issue  of  that  interesting 
trial,  which  every   liberal  mind  must  approve   and 
applaud  ;  had  he  confined  himself  to  the  gratifying  of 
his  readers  with  a  display  of  eloquent  and  ingenious 
declamation,  and  irresistible  argument,  although  on 
a  subject  which  never  admitted  of  a  doubt ;  nay,  had 
he  annexed  to  the  account  of  this  trial  an  exposition 
of  his  creed,  as  adopted  and  enforced  by  the  council 
of  Trent,  unaccompanied  with  any  illiberal  reflections 
upon   those  who  pay  little  regard  to  that  council's 
denunciations  or  decrees,  the  writer  of  this  reply 
would   never   have    thought   himself  authorized    to 
question  a  right  to  instruct  the  members  of  his  church 


in  the  tenets  of  their  religion,  or  to  throw  over  them 
fresh  lights  to  demonstrate  their  truth. 

But  the  reverend  author  of  the  Appendix  (for  I  sup- 
pose him  to  be  such)  has  manifestly  seized  upon 
what  he  conceived  to  be  a  favourable  opportunity  to 
lay  his  doctrines  before  the  public,  still  alive  to  some 
favourable  impressions  from  the  recent  decision  of 
his  cause,  with  an  air  of  triumph  bordering  upon  in- 
sult, with  a  tone  of  defiance  pointing  to  intimidation. 

He  enters  upon  his  exposition  by  boldly  asserting, 
as  "  an  undeniable  fact,  and  which  our  adversaries," 
says  he,  "  have  but  too  well  known,  that  the  Catholic 
doctrine  can  never  be  attacked  with  any  success,  but 
by  misrepresentation;  and  that  it  wants  only  to  be 
known  to  obtain  the  suffrages  of  upright  men,  and  to  si- 
lence the  most  inveterate  of  its  enemies."  {Jipp-  p.  1.) 

Here  the  reverend  author  begins  by  indulging  a 
spirit  of  illiberality,  which,  it  seems,  all  the  candour  of 
his  Protestant  advocates,  all  the  enlightened  justice  of 
his  Protestant  judge,  had  not  been  able  to  allay.  He 
confidently  throws  down  the  gauntlet,  and  looks  around 
him,  either  for  resistance  or  submission.  Silence  on 
the  part  of  Protestants,  although  deemed  by  some 
advisable  on  this  occasion,  might  probably  flatter  the 
Reverend  Gentleman  and  his  adherents  with  an  idea 
of  the  latter  ;  and  as  one  of  his  learned  advocates,  al- 
though a  Protestant,  has  been  induced  to  assert,  that 
"  the  Catholic,"  meaning  clearly  the  Roman  Catholic, 
"  religion  has  existed  for  eighteen  centuries,  and  that 
the  sacrament  of  penance  has  existed  with  it ;"  (Cath. 
Ques.  p.  26. ;)  there  are  solid  grounds  for  seriously 
apprehending,  lest  some  persons  not  so  well  informed 
as  the  learned   counsellor,  may  be  seduced  into  his 


opinion,  and  into  other  unfounded  doctrines  contained 
in  the  Appendix. 

The  taste  for  religious  controversy  has,  in  great 
measure,  gone  by ;  yet  still,  when  opinions  by  many 
deemed  erroneous  are  forced  upon  the  public  eye, 
by  a  great  parade  of  erudition,  and  a  hardihood  of 
assertion  smiling  contemptuously  at  contradiction, 
when  the  teachers  of  any  Christian  church  presume 
rashly  to  pronounce,  that  "  in  her  bosom  only,  man 
can  enjoy  the  precious  advantage  of  forgiveness  of 
sins ;  that  she  is  the  true  Jerusalem,  in  which  the  true 
temple  exists,  and  the  true  probatic  pond,  which  heals 
all  sorts  of  diseases ;  that  in  her  only  are  found  the 
true  Jordan,  which  cleansed  Naaman  and  his  leprosy; 
that  she  is  the  mysterious  inn,  in  which  the  true  Sa- 
maritan effects  the  cure  of  the  traveller,  whom  he 
finds  wounded  in  the  road  to  Jericho  ;"  {Jipp*  p.  107.) 
I  say,  when  such  lofty  pretensions  as  these  are  ob- 
truded upon  the  public,  it  cannot  be  expected  that 
they  will  pass  unnoticed  by  those  who  are  acquaint- 
ed with  their  futility,  or  by  the  Christian  ministers  of 
other  societies,  who  consider  themselves  intrusted 
with  the  sacred  deposite  of  religious  truth,  as  its  dele- 
gated guardians. 

It  is  not  the  intention  of  this  reply  to  follow  the  re- 
verend author  of  the  Appendix  into  the  extensive 
fields  of  polemical  divinity,  which  he  has  laid  open  to 
Eis  readers.  To  the  avowed  design  of  proving  the 
divine  institution  of  sacramental  auricular  confession,  he 
has  annexed  all  the  hackneyed  and  well-known  argu- 
ments in  favour  of  the  collateral  tenets  of  the  Romish 
church.  Of  many  of  these  no  notice  can  be  taken  in 
a  short  pamphlet :  if,  however,  they  should  disturb  the 


8 

belief  of  any  Protestant  reader,  let  him  only  turn  to 
some  of  the  most  eminent  writers  in  defence  of  the 
reformation,  which  every  library  furnishes ;  let  him 
only  peruse  the  immortal  and  unanswerable  work  of 
Chillingworth,  entitled  The  Religion  of  Protestants  a 
safe  way  to  Salvation,  and  every  rising  doubt  and  dif- 
ficulty will  be  quickly  dissipated. 

The  sole  object,  then,  of  this  reply  is  to  investi- 
gate and  refute,  as  briefly  as  possible,  the  arguments 
alleged  in  the  Appendix  in  support  of  the  divine  insti- 
tution of  auricular  confession,  or  of  the  sacrament  of 
penance,  as  explained,  decreed,  and  enjoined  by  the 
council  of  Trent.  In  doing  this,  I  trust  it  will  be 
shown,  first,  that  the  doctrine  of  auricular  confession, 
as  a  divinely  instituted  sacrament  of  the  Christian  church, 
has  no  foundation  in  the  scripture.  Secondly,  that 
this  doctrine  was  unknown  to  the  primitive  church ; 
and  that  previously  to  the  thirteenth  century  it  had 
never  been  enacted  into  an  article  of  faith  and  indis- 
pensable discipline. 

Thirdly,  That  neither  the  council  of  Lateran,  nor 
the  council  of  Trent,  nor  any  other  earthly  tribunal, 
has  a  right  to  impose  such  a  grievous  yoke  upon 
the  faithful  from  a  plea  to  infallibility ;  as  this  plea 
is  altogether  unsupported  either  by  reason  or  reve- 
lation. 

The  reader  will  readily  perceive  that  whatever  can 
be  urged  in  answer  to  the  arguments  for  the  divine  in- 
stitution of  auricular  confession,  must  be  comprehend- 
ed under  these  three  heads :  he  will  see  no  necessity 
of  following  the  Rev.  Gentleman  through  all  the 
syllogistic  forms,  and  imposing  arrangements  of  a 
great,  but  irrelevant  map?  of  matter,  which  frequent- 


iy  perplex,  rather  than  elucidate  the  truth;  for  it 
must  strike  every  mind  with  conviction,  that  a  reli- 
gious tenet,  which  is  founded  neither  on  scripture, 
universal  usage,  nor  competent  authority,  can  have 
no  foundation  at  all. 


PART  FIRST. 


"'  The  doctrine  of  the  divine  institution  of  sacramental  au- 
ricular confession,  not  authorized  by  scripture." 

Before  we  enter  on  the  proofs  of  this  assertion,  it 
is  necessary  to  state  precisely,  in  what  consists  the 
difference  of  opinion  between  the  Protestant  and  Ro- 
mish churches,  with  respect  to  confession  of  sins:  ac- 
curate notions  of  this  disagreement  can  alone  enable 
the  reader  to  perceive  the  drift  of  the  arguments  that 
follow.  This  difference  is  fairly  stated  by  Cardinal 
Bellarmine,  and  will  not  be  questioned  by  the  author 
of  the  Appendix.  "  Admittit  Calvinus  generalem  com- 
fessionem;  admittit  etiam,  privatam,  coram  pastore; 
sed  addit,  banc,  liberam  esse  debere,  nee  ab  omnibus 
exigendam,  nee  cogendos  ad  enumeranda  omnia  pec- 
cata  praecepto  aliquo,  aut  arte  inducendos,  nisi  quoad 
interesse  sua  putabunt,  ut  solidum  consolationis  fruc- 
tum  referant."  (Bellar.  lib.  3.  dePcmit.cap.  1.)  And, 
"  in  this  doctrine,"  says  he,  in  the  same  place,  "  all 
Protestants  agree,"  that  is,  all  Protestant  churches 
admit,  that  it  may  be  occasionally  adviseable  for  a  man 
burthened  with  sin,  to  lay  open  his  conscience  in  pri- 
vate to  a  minister  of  God,  and  to  seek  at  his  hands  the 
aids  of  instruction,  and  the  comfort  of  God's  pardon  : 
but  they  contend,  at  the  same  time,  that  such  private 
confession  is  a  voluntary  act,  by  no  means  to  be  con- 


10 

sidered  as  a  divine  institution,  and  an  indispensable 
obligation,  without  which,  no  remission  or  pardon  of 
sin  can  be  hoped  for  from  God,  as  the  council  of  Trent 
has  decreed  it  to  be  under  a  formidable  anathema, 
(scss.  14.,)  and  the  Romish  church  professes  to  be- 
lieve.* 

*  The  error  of  the  Romish  Church  concerning  penance  has  beeD  probably 
strengthened  by  a  misuse  of  the  Latin  term  "  pasnitentiam  agere."  It  is 
classical  Latin  for  fiiTdwtiv,  u  or  to  repent ;"  but  the  expression  a  to  do  pen- 
ance," conveys  to  an  English  ear  a  very  different  sentiment  from  either;  although 
strictly  a  rendering  of  the  Latin  expression.  The  Douay  translation  says,  in 
a  note  on  Matthew  iii.  2.,  that  the  Greek  word  is  used  in  Scripture,  and  by  the 
Fathers,  for  the  sense  of  the  said  English  expression  :  but  this  may  safely  be 
denied.  To  show  the  difference  of  meaning,  I  will  refer  to  the  following 
texts,  selected  out  of  many  in  the  Douay  translation.  It  has  u  Do  penance" 
in  Matthew  iii.  2.,  and  in  Acts  ii.  38.,  and  indeed  generally.  But  in  Luke 
xvii.  3  and  4.,  and  in  Acts  xi.  18,,  the  incongruity  is  so  manifest,  that  the 
phraseology  is  varied  essentially.  In  the  former  passage,  the  repentance 
spoken  of,  is  an  act  of  justice  to  an  offended  brother.  In  the  latter  it  is  de- 
scriptive of  the  conversion  of  heathen  persons;  who,  on  the  principles  of  the 
opposite  system,  are  not  required  to  do  any  acts  comprehended  under  the 
name  of  penance,  in  the  usual  sense  of  the  word  :  such  acts  being  restricted 
to  sins  after  baptism. 

The  verb  ujTavotu,  is  either  compounded  of  uito,  after,  and  vonv,  to  under- 
stand, which  signifies,  that  after  hearing  such  preaching,  the  sinner  is  led  to 
understand,  that  the  way  he  has  walked  in  was  the  way  of  misery,  death,  and 
hell.  Or  the  word  may  be  derived  from  \\na,  after,  and  avoia,  madness,  which 
intimates  that  the  whole  life  of  a  sinner  is  no  other  than  a  continued  course  of 
madness  and  folly  :  and  if  to  live  in  a  constant  opposition  to  all  the  dictates 
of  true  wisdom  ;  to  wage  war  with  his  own  best  interests  in  time  and  eternity ; 
to  provoke  and  insult  the  living  God ;  and,  by  habitual  sin,  to  prepare  him- 
self only  for  a  state  of  misery,  be  evidences  of  insanity,  every  sinner  exhibits 
them  plentifully.  It  was  from  this  notion  of  the  word,  that  the  Latins  term- 
ed repentance  resipisemtia,  a  growing  wise  again,  from  re  and  sapere  ;  or,  ac- 
cording to  Tertullian,  Resipiscentia  quasi  receptio  mentis  ad  se,  restoring  the 
mind  to  itself:  Contra  Marcion,  lib.  ii.  Repentance  then  implies,  that  a 
measure  of  divine  tcisdom  is  communicated  to  the  sinner,  and  that  he  thereby 
becomes  wise  to  salvation.  That  his  mind,  purposes,  opinions,  and  inclina- 
tions are  changed :  and  that,  in  consequence,  there  is  a  total  change  in  his 
conduct.  It  need  scarcely  be  remarked,  that,  in  this  state,  a  man  feels  deep 
anguish  of  soul,  because  he  has  sinned  against  God,  unfitted  himself  for  hea* 
yen,  and  exposed  his  soul  to  hell.  Hence,  a  true  penitent  has  that  sorrow, 
whereby  he  forsakes  sin,  uot  only  because  it  has  been  ruinous  to  his  own  souk 
but  because  it  has  been  offensive  to  God- 


u 

Now  this  divine  institution  of  private,  or  auricular 
confession,  and  its  absolute  necessity  for  the  remission 
of  sins,  are,  for  many  reasons,  rejected  from  the  creed 
of  all  Protestants  :  and  particularly,  because  they  can- 
not discover  these  doctrines  in  the  scriptures.  They 
consider,  and  so  must  every  candid  inquirer  into  re- 
ligious truth,  that  if  a  burthen  so  grievous  as  auricular 
confession,  had  been  enjoined  as  a  Christian  precept 
in  the  gospel,  it  would  have  been  expressed  in  terms 
the  most  explicit  and  convincing;  in  phrases  at  least 
as  imperative  and  unambiguous,  as  those  which  im- 
posed the  heavy  yoke  of  the  law;  a  yoke,  nevertheless, 
light  and  pleasant,  when  compared  to  that  which  has 
since  been  fixed  upon  the  necks  of  Christians,  under 
the  mild  and  perfect  law  of  liberty  and  grace. 

The  passages  referred  to  by  the  Reverend  Gentle- 
man, in  support  of  the  divine  institution,  and  absolute 
necessity  of  auricular  sacramental  confession,  are  three 
from  the  Evangelists,  one  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, one  from  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
and  the  last  from  the  General  Epistle  of  St.  James — - 
On  each  of  these  a  few  observations  will  suffice  to 
show,  that,  all  the  majors  and  minors  of  the  Reverend 
Gentleman  notwithstanding,  these  texts  bear  very 
lightly  and  remotely  on  the  question  before  us.  They 
by  no  means  carry  with  them  that  blaze  of  evidence 
which  should  compel  a  man  to  unfold  the  most  hu- 
miliating thoughts,  desires,  and  actions  of  his  life  ;  to 
communicate  to  a  fellow  mortal,  often  very  ignorant, 
and  incapable  of  advising,  those  secrets  of  the  heart, 
which  to  know,  is  the  exclusive  privilege  of  Omnis- 
cience; and  of  which  he  is  too  jealous,  to  enact,  under 
the  sanction  of  a  precept,  the  participation  of  them 


12 

with  a  sinful  creature.  The  control  over  its  hidden 
emotions  and  propensities,  either  in  concealing  or  di- 
vulging them  to  others,  must  be  among  the  essential 
qualities  of  the  mind,  and  the  voice  of  God  must  be  as 
distinct  as  that  which  thundered  upon  Sinai,  before  it 
can  be  imagined  that  he  ever  meant  to  infringe  them. 
But  to  proceed  to  the  Reverend  Gentleman's  argu- 
ment drawn  from  the  New  Testament — In  the  eigh- 
teenth verse  of  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  St.  Matthew, 
he  finds,  that  "  Christ  has  instituted  the  apostles  and 
their  lawful  successors,  the  priests  of  his  church,  to 
be  judges  upon  earth,  invested  with  a  power,  that 
without  their  sentence,  no  sinner,  fallen  after  baptism, 
can  be  reconciled."  {<App>  p.  20.)  Here  is  a  discove- 
ry of  great  latitude  indeed,  and  although  somewhat 
awkwardly  expressed,  contains  a  most  awful  and 
momentous  meaning:  nothing  less  than  "the  impos- 
sibility of  a  sinner's  being  reconciled  to  God,  after 
baptism,  without  the  sentence  of  a  priest."  The  first 
text  is  this,  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I 
will  build  my  church — and  I  will  give  unto  thee  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven;  and  whatsoever  thou 
shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven :  and 
whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed 
in  heaven."  The  second  text  is  Matt,  xviii.  18.  where^ 
in  the  same  terms,  he  makes  the  same  promise  after- 
wards to  his  apostles — "  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  what- 
soever ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  hea- 
ven, and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be 
loosed  in  heaven."  "  The  third,  and  principal  pas- 
sage," says  the  Reverend  Gentleman,  4<  upon  which 
the  belief  of  the  Catholic  church  respecting  the  di- 
vine institution   and   absolute  necessitv  of  confession 


13 

is  grounded,  is  found  in  the  twentieth  chapter  of  St. 
John,  where  Christ,  after  his  resurrection,  thus  ad- 
dresses his  disciples,  (ver.  twenty-first  and  twenty- 
second,)  'As  the  Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I 
you;  and  when  he  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on  them, 
and  saith  unto  them,  receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost; 
whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto 
them ;  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  re- 
tained.' " 

It  might  be  sufficient  here  to  observe,  respecting 
these  passages,  that  they  were  never  deemed  by  the 
fathers  of  the  primitive  church,  to  be  conclusive  evi- 
dence for  the  divine  institution  of  auricular  confession, 
as  it  has  been  since  explained  and  decreed  by  the 
council  of  Trent ;  and  that  during  the  ages  preceding 
the  Lateran  council,  in  1225,  they  have  been  gene- 
rally understood  as  communicating  such  power  only 
to  the  ministers  of  the  gospel,  as  the  Protestant 
churches  are  willing  to  allow.  If  this  should  be  fully 
proved  in  the  second  part  of  this  Reply,  as  I  trust  it 
will,  the  confidence  of  the  Reverend  Gentleman,  and 
his  adherents,  in  applying  these  passages  to  support 
their  doctrine,  will  be  considerably  abated. 

The  Reverend  Gentleman  builds  on  these  passages, 
many  arguments  in  favour  of  auricular  sacramental 
confession,  for  which  Protestants  conceive  they  fur- 
nish no  foundation.  The  words  "  thou  art  Peter,"  &c. 
have  no  reference  to  the  subject  immediately  before 
us ;  for  even  granting  them  to  imply  a  promise  of 
exemption  from  error,  they  surely  convey  no  author- 
ity to  St.  Peter,  to  receive  the  private  confessions  of 
the  faithful,  and  forgive  their  sins  by  sacramental  ab- 
solution— But.  it   i«  the   power  of  tho   keys,  convoy 


14 

ed  in  these  passages,  on  which  the  Gentleman 
insists— He  identifies  this  power  with  a  judicial  autho- 
rity, which  cannot  be  exercised  without  a  full  disclo- 
sure of  all  the  sins  of  the  penitent,  to  a  judge  appoint- 
ed by  God  to  forgive  or  retain  them.  He  tells  us, 
(p.  24.,)  that  to  adjust  any  differences  which  a  subject 
may  have  with  his  sovereign,  it  is  necessary  to  present 
himself  before  him  whom  the  sovereign  should  have  dele- 
gated judge  in  his  place.  Now,  is  there  any  parity  be- 
tween this  case,  and  that  of  the  sinner  with  God  ? 
Suppose  this  sovereign  to  be  omniscient,  and,  of 
course,  intimately  acquainted  with  every  action, 
thought,  and  disposition  of  his  subject,  which  might 
render  him  an  object  of  pardon  or  punishment ;  sup- 
pose, moreover,  this  most  merciful  sovereign  had  issued 
a  solemn  proclamation,  inviting  all  who  "  labour  and 
are  heavy  laden,  to  come  unto  him,  that  he  may  give 
them  rest,"  would  a  commission  to  an  officer,  to  grant 
or  refuse  admittance  into  his  kingdom,  induce  the  sub- 
ject to  apply  to  him  on  a  subject  no  wise  connected 
with  this  commission,  especially  if,  by  a  solemn  ordi- 
nance, he  had  already  been  received  as  a  regular  sub- 
ject into  this  kingdom  ?  Again,  let  us  suppose  that  a 
sovereign  should  appoint  judges  throughout  his  domi- 
nions, to  absolve  all  his  subjects  from  the  guilt  and  pe- 
nalties of  rebellion,  who  should  manifest  satisfactory 
evidences  of  their  repentance  and  future  allegiance, 
would  it  be  necessary  to  specify  every  act  of  rebellion 
of  which  these  subjects  had  been  guilty  ?  Would  not  a 
general  confession  of  their  guilt  and  sincere  resolutions 
to  offend  no  more  be  sufficient  grounds  for  the  judges 
to  act  upon,  to  declare  them  reinstated  in  the  favour 
of  their  govPTpigrn  and  the  privileges  o(  his  kingdom  ? 


la 

The  power  of  binding  and  loosening  is  committed  to 
these  judges,  and  it  can  only  be  exercised  by  declar- 
ing those  to  be  still  guilty,  who  remain  obstinate  in 
their  offences,  and  those  to  be  absolved  who  are  sin- 
cerely penitent.  Thus,  we  see  that  one  of  the  Reve- 
rend Gentleman's  main  propositions,  (p.  25.,)  "  that  if 
confession  be  not  of  divine  institution,  and  of  absolute 
necessity  for  the  reconciliation  of  the  sinner,  that  is,  if 
there  be  any  other  ordinary  means  to  obtain  the  re- 
mission of  sins  committed  after  baptism,  different  from 
confession,  the  use  and  exercise  of  the  power  of  for- 
giving and  retaining  sins,  would  be  rendered  thereby 
wholly  useless  and  nugatory."  We  perceive,  I  say, 
that  this  assertion  is  totally  unfounded.  A  circum- 
stantial enumeration  of  every  sinful  thought,  word, 
and  deed,  to  be  made  to  a  priest  by  a  private  confes- 
sion, is  cot  required  by  any  of  these  passages  of  scrip- 
ture, for  the  due  exercise  of  the  Christian  ministry  in 
the  forgiveness  of  sins. 

We  find  throughout  the  New  Testament,  that 
"  Christ  has  given  power  and  commandment  to  his 
ministers  to  declare  and  pronounce  to  his  people,  be- 
ing penitent,  the  absolution  and  remission  of  their 
sins;  and  that  he  pardoneth  and  absolveth  all  those 
who  truly  repent  and  unfeignedly  believe  his  holy 
gospel."  {Common  Prayer.)  This  we  find,  and  we 
find  nothing  more  ;  for  as  to  the  power  of  retaining 
sins,  the  Rev.  Gentleman  will  not,  surely,  conceive  it 
to  be  applicable  to  those,  for  which,  the  sinner  exhi- 
bits every  reasonable  mark  of  godly  sorrow  and  re- 
pentance. Sins  thus  repented  of,  God  could  never 
have  given  any  man  power  to  retain.  Such  power 
would  efface  every  idea  of  divine  placability,  contra- 


16 

diet  the  most  positive  declarations  of  Scripture,  and 
overthrow  the  whole  economy  of  the  gospel.  Be- 
sides, the  power  of  retaining  sins  can  never,  upon  the 
Rev.  Gentleman's  own  principles,  constitute  any  part 
of  this  sacrament  of  penance,  because  absolution  is 
the  form  of  that  sacrament,  so  that  where  there  is  no 
absolution  there  can  be  no  sacrament.  'The  power, 
therefore,  of  the  keys,  or  the  authority  to  bind  and  to 
loose,  to  forgive  and  retain  sins,  communicated  by 
Christ  to  his  apostles  and  their  successors,  must  be 
very  different  from  that  now  exercised  by  the  priests 
of  the  Romish  church  :  and,  truly,  do  we  read  in  the 
New  Testament,  that  any  such  power  as  this  was  ex- 
ercised by  the  apostles  ?  The  Rev.  Gentleman,  in- 
deed,  points  out  several  passages,  which  mention,  in 
general  terms,  the  confession  of  sins,  but  how  he  can 
seriously  believe,  that  they  establish  auricular  sacra- 
mental confession,  must  be  matter  of  astonishment  to 
those  who  are  accustomed  to  think  for  themselves. 
Do  the  recorded  instances  of  our  Saviour  pronounc- 
ing forgiveness  of  sins  mention  any  confession  but  such 
as  was  general  ?  Did  the  penitent  woman,  when 
kneeling  at  the  feet  of  Jesus,  watering  them  with  her 
tears,  and  wiping  them  with  her  hair,  go  into  a  mi- 
nute and  circumstantial  enumeration  of  her  sins  ;  or 
rather,  were  not  the  unequivocal  evidences  of  her  re- 
pentance deemed  sufficient  to  procure  her  absolution  ? 
Was  not  the  simple  confession  of  "  God  be  merciful 
to  me  a  sinner,"  effectual  in  obtaining  forgiveness  for 
the  contrite  Publican  ?  Where  do  we  read  that  a 
private  sacramental  confession  was  ever  made  to 
Christ  or  his  apostles  ?  "  If  we  confess  our  sins," 
says  St.  John,  "  God  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us 


17 

our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness.'' 
Confess  our  sins — to  whom  ?  not  surely  to  a  priest,  but 
to  God,  who  alone  can  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteous* 
ness.  Can  the  Rev.  Gentleman  imagine  that  any  un- 
fettered mind  will  admit  the  following  conclusions, 
drawn  from  the  passages  of  Scripture  which  he  al- 
leges ?  "  Christ  left  with  his  apostles,  and  their  suc- 
cessors, the  power  of  forgiving  and  retaining  sins  ;" 
therefore,  no  sins  can  be  either  forgiven  or  retained, 
but  such  as  are  revealed  to  a  priest  in  sacramental 
confession.  How  does  it  follow  that  a  power  of  for- 
giving, in  God's  name,  the  sins  revealed  to  his  minis- 
ters, implies  an  obligation  or  necessity  of  making  a 
minute  and  circumstantial  confession  of  every  deadly 
sin  ?  How  does  it  follow,  that  God  will  not  forgive  sins 
which  are  not  revealed  to  a  priest  ?  Does  this  pow- 
er in  the  Christian  church  invalidate  the  means  of  ob- 
taining forgiveness  adopted  in  the  Jewish  :  or  are  the 
motives  of  a  pardoning  God  iluctuating  and  uncer- 
tain ?  Would  not  a  penitential  spirit  plead  as  effec 
tually  for  a  Christian  now,  as  it  did  for  king  David  in 
the  olden  time,  when  he  said,  (Ps.  xxxii.,)  "  I  will  ac- 
knowledge my  sin  unto  thee,  and  my  unrighteousness 
have  I  not  hid.  I  said,  I  will  confess  my  sins  unto  the 
Lord,  and  so  thou  forgavest  the  wickedness  of  my 
sin  :"  or  shall  Christians  be  compelled  to  believe,  thai 
a  few  ambiguous  expressions  are  to  be  diverted  from 
their  more  obvious  and  consistent  meaning,  to  bind  on 
their  consciences  a  most  intolerable  burthen,  incon- 
sistent with  the  perfect  law  of  liberty,  by  which  Christ 
has  set  us  free,  and  tending  frequently,  it  is  to  be  fear- 
ed, to  inspire  a  confidence  of  forgiveness,  resting 
rather  on  a  compliance  with  so  humiliating  an   ordi- 


18 

nance,  than  on  the  full  and  perfect  atonement  and 
satisfaction  of  Christ  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  ? 

A  more  frequent,  explicit,  and  impressive  reference 
to  this  fundamental  article  of  Christianity  would  not 
fail  to  detract  from  the  imaginary  importance  of  sa- 
cramental confession,  by  convincing  every  scriptural 
believer,  that  no  satisfaction  for  sin  can  be  made  or 
required,  but  what  has  been  already  made  by  the 
great  Redeemer ;  and  that  even  repentance  itself, 
without  it,  so  far  from  being  sufficient  to  ensure  the 
sinner's  amendment,  is  rather  calculated  to  render 
him  easy  under  his  guilt,  from  the  facility  of  recon- 
ciliation. There  is,  in  fact,  no  other  doctrine,  or  or- 
dinance, or  discipline,  which,  exclusively  of  this  tenet, 
can  alarm  or  rouse  the  sinner  from  the  apathy  of 
habitual  transgression.  I  know  that  the  Rev.  Gen- 
tleman believes  this  doctrine  in  its  full  extent;  and  I 
know  that  Protestants  feel  grateful  to  his  church, 
that  amidst  the  prevalence  of  ignorance,  superstition, 
and  folly,  she  still  preserved  inviolate  this  and  other 
vital  principles  of  our  holy  faith ;  for  it  was  against 
these  that  the  gates  of  hell,  or  the  powers  of  death  and 
darkness,  were  never  to  prevail.  But  I  put  it  to  the 
conscience  of  the  Rev.  Gentleman,  whether  his  high 
encomiums  on  the  divine  right,  the  indispensable  ne- 
cessity, and  the  mighty  benefits  of  auricular  confes- 
sion, do  not  tend  to  keep  this  fundamental  tenet  out 
of  sight,  or  at  least  to  place  it  in  the  back  ground  of 
the  Christian  system. 

The  following  luminous  exposition  of  these  passa- 
ges, by  the  learned  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  if  duly  consi- 
dered, would  probably  set  at  rest  for  ever,  all  contro- 
versy arising  from  them. 


19 

"  Thou  art  Peter.  This  was  the  same  as  if  he  had 
said,  I  acknowledge  thee  for  one  of  my  disciples — for  this 
name  was  given  him  by  our  Lord  when  he  first  called 
him  to  the  apostleship.     See  John  i.  42. 

"  Peter,  mrpo;,  signifies  a  rock  ;  and  our  Lord,  whose 
constant  custom  it  was  to  rise  to  heavenly  things 
through  the  medium  of  earthly,  takes  occasion  from 
the  name,  the  metaphorical  meaning  of  which  was 
strength  and  stability,  to  point  the  solidity  of  the  con- 
fession, and  the  stability  of  that  cause  which  should 
be  founded  on  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Living 
God. 

"  Upon  this  very  rock,  tun  t*ut»  t„  ^jt^* — this  true  con- 
fession  of  thine — that  I  am  the  Messiah,  that  am 
come  to  reveal  and  communicate  the  living  God,  that 
the  dead  lost  world  may  be  saved — upon  this  very 
rock  myself,  thus  confessed,  (alluding  probably  to  Psal. 
cxviii.  22.  The  Stone  which  the  builders  rejected,  is  be- 
come the  Head-stone  of  the  Corner:  and  to  Isa.  xxviii. 
16.  Behold  I  lay  a  Stone  in  Z ion  for  a  Foundation,) 
—will  I  build  my  Church  nou  w  tmkmnm,  my  assembly  or 
congregation,  i.  e.  of  persons  who  are  made  parta- 
kers of  this  precious  faith.  That  Peter  is  not  design- 
ed  in  our  Lord's  words,  must  be  evident  to  ail  who 
are  not  blinded  by  prejudice.  Peter  was  only  one  of 
the  builders  in  this  sacred  edifice,  (Eph.  ii.  20.)  who, 
himself,  tells  us,  (with  the  rest  of  the  believers,)  was 
built  on  this  living  foundation  stone  :  (I  Pet.  ii.  4,  5.) 
therefore,  Jesus  Christ  did  not  say,  on  thee,  Peter, 
will  I  build  my  church,  but  changes  immediately  the 
expression,  and  says,  upon  that  very  rock,  m  rem™  n  nnpa, 
to  show  that  he  neither  addressed  Peter  nor  any 
other  of  the  apostle?.     So.  the  supremacy  of  Peter, 


20 

and  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  must  be 
sought  in  some  other  Scripture,  for  they  certainly  are 
not  to  be  found  in  this. 

"  The  gales  of  Hell,  nu\a>  aj0u,  i.  e.  the  machinations  and 
powers  of  the  invisible  world.  In  ancient  times,  the 
gates  of  fortified  cities  were  used  to  hold  councils  in ; 
and  were  usually  places  of  great  strength.  Our 
Lord's  expression  means,  that  neither  the  plots,  strata- 
gems, nor  strength,  of  Satan  and  his  angels,  should 
ever  so  far  prevail  as  to  destroy  the  sacred  truth? 
in  the  above  confession.  Sometimes  the  gates  art- 
taken  for  the  troops  which  issue  out  from  them — we 
may  firmly  believe,  that  though  Hell  should  open 
her  gates,  and  vomit  out  her  Devil  and  all  his  angels 
to  fight  against  Christ  and  his  saints,  ruin  and  dis- 
comfiture must  be  the  consequence  on  their  part ;  ae 
the  arm  of  the  Omnipotent  must  prevail. 

"  The  keys  of  the  kingdom.  By  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven, we  may  consider  the  true  Church,  that  house  of 
God,  to  be  meant,  and  by  the  keys,  the  power  of  ad- 
mitting into  that  house,  or  of  preventing  any  impro- 
per person  from  coming  in.  In  other  words,  the  doc- 
trine of  salvation,  and  the  full  declaration  of  the  way 
in  which  God  will  save  sinners :  and  who  they  are 
that  shall  be  finally  excluded  from  heaven ;  and  on 
what  account.  When  the  Jews  made  a  man  a  doctor 
of  the  law,  they  put  into  his  hand  the  key  of  the 
closet  in  the  temple,  where  the  sacred  books  were 
kept,  and  also  tablets  to  write  upon;  signifying  by 
this  that  they  gave  him  authority  to  teach  and  to  ex- 
plain the  Scriptures  to  the  people.  Martin.  This 
prophetic  declaration  of  our  Lord,  was  literally  ful- 
filled to  Peter,  as  he  was  made  the  first  instrument  of 


2J 

opening,  i.  e.  preaching  the  doctrines  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  to  the  Jews,  (Acts  ii.  41,)  and  to  the  Gentiles. 
(Acts  x.  44 — 47.  xi.  J.  xv.  7.) 

"  Whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind  on  earth.  This  mode 
of  expression  was  frequent  among  the  Jews :  they 
considered  that  every  thing  that  was  done  upon  earth 
according  to  the  order  of  God,  was  at  the  same  time 
done  in  heaven :  hence  they  were  accustomed  to  say, 
that  when  the  priest,  on  the  day  of  atonement,  offered 
the  two  goats  upon  earth,  the  same  were  offered  in 
Heaven.  As  one  goat  therefore  is  permitted  to  es- 
cape on  earth,  one  is  permitted  to  escape  in  heaven; 
and  when  the  priest  casts  the  lots  on  earth,  the  priest, 
also  casts  the  lots  in  heaven.  See  Sohar.  Levit.  foL 
26.  and  see  Lightfoot  and  Schoetgen.  These  words 
will  receive  considerable  light  from  Levit.  xiii.  3  and 
23.  The  priest  shall  look  upon  him  (the  leper)  and 
pronounce  him  unclean.  Heb.  "ifift  NED1  vetime  otho,  he 
shall  pollute  him,  i.  e.  shall  declare  him  polluted,  from 
the  evidences  mentioned  before,  and  in  ver.  23.  The 
priest  shall  pronounce  him  clean  ?|"On  "HIUDI  vetiharo 
hacohen,  the  priest  shall  cleanse  him,  i.  e.  declare  he  is 
clean  from  the  evidences  mentioned  in  the  verse.  In 
the  one  case  the  priest  declared  the  person  infected 
with  the  leprosy,  and  unfit  for  civil  society :  and  in  the 
other,  that  the  suspected  person  was  clean,  and  might 
safely  associate  with  his  fellows  in  civil  or  religious 
assemblies.  The  disciples  of  our  Lord,  from  having 
the  keys,  i.  e.  the  true  knowledge  of  the  doctrine  ol 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  should  be  able  at  all  times  to 
distinguish  between  the  clean  and  the  unclean,  and  pro- 
nounce infallible  judgment:  and  this  binding  and  loos- 
ing, or  pronouncing  fit  or  unfit  for  fellowship  with  the 


21' 

Mtiiibtts  of  Christ,  being  always  according  to  the  doc- 
trine of  the  gospel  of  God,  should  be  considered  as 
proceeding  immediately  from  heaven,  and  consequent- 
ly as  divinely  ratified.'''' 

That  binding  and  loosing  were  terms  in  frequent 
use  among  the  Jews,  and  that  they  meant  bidding  and 
forbidding,  granting  and  refusing,  declaring  lawful  or 
unlawful,  &c,  Dr.  Lightfoot,  after  having  given  nu- 
merous instances,  thus  concludes : 

"  To  these  may  be  added,  if  need  were,  the  frequent, 
(shall  I  say  ?)  or  infinite  use  of  the  phrases,  "tiVft)  T)Dtf 
bound  and  loosed,  which  we  meet  with  thousands  of  times 
over.  But  from  these  allegations  the  reader  sees 
abundantly  enough  both  the  frequency  and  the  common 
use  of  this  phrase,  and  the  sense  of  it  also ;  namely, 
first,  that  it  is  used  in  doctrine,  and  in  judgments,  con- 
cerning things  allowed  or  not  allowed  in  the  law.  Se- 
condly, that  to  bind'is  the  same  with  to  forbid,  or  to  de~ 
dare  forbidden.  To  think  that  Christ,  when  he  used 
the  common  phrase,  was  not  understood  by  his  hear- 
ers, in  the  common  and  vulgar  sense,  shall  I  call  it  a 
matter  of  laughter,  or  of  madness? 

"  To  this,  therefore,  do  these  words  amount.  When 
the  time  was  come  wherein  the  Mosaic  Law,  as  to 
some  part  of  it,  was  to  be  abolished,  and  left  off,  and 
as  to  another  part  of  it,  was  to  be  continued,  and  last 
for  ever,  he  granted  Peter,  here,  and  to  the  rest  of  the 
apostles,  (chap,  xviii.  18.)  a  power  to  abolish  or  confirm 
what  they  thought  good,  and  as  they  thought  good  j 
being  taught  this,  and  led  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  if  he 
should  say,  whatsoever  ye  shall  bind  in  the  law  of 
Moses  that  is  forbid,  it  shall  be  forbidden,  the  divine 
mithority   confirming   it ;    and  whatsoever  ye  shall 


23 

loose,  that  is,  permit,  or  shall  teach  that  it  is  permitted 
and  lawful,  shall  be  lawful  and  permitted.  Hence  they 
bound,  that  is,  forbad  circumcision  to  the  believers; 
eating  of  things  offered  to  idols,  of  things  strangled, 
and  of  blood  for  a  time,  to  the  Gentiles:  and  that  which 
they  bound  on  earth  was  confirmed  in  heaven.  They 
loosed,  that  is,  allowed  purification  to  Paid,  and  to 
four  other  brethren,  for  the  shunning  of  scandal,  (Acts 
xxi.  24.)  and  in  a  word,  by  these  words  of  Christ  it  was 
committed  to  them,  the  Holy  Spirit  directing,  that 
they  should  make  decrees  concerning  religion,  as  to 
the  use  or  rejection  of  Mosaic  rites  and  judgments, 
and  that  either  for  a  time,  or  for  ever. 

"  Let  the  word  be  applied,  by  way  of  paraphrase, 
to  the  matter  that  was  transacted  at  present  with 
Peter.  4 1  am  about  to  build  a  Gentile  Church,'  saith 
Christ,  l  and  to  thee,  O  Peter,  do  I  give  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  that  thou  mayest  first  open  the 
door  of  faith  to  them;  but  if  thou  askest  by  what  rule 
that  Church  is  to  be  governed,  when  the  Mosaic  rule 
may  seem  so  improper  for  it,  thou  shalt  be  so  guided 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  whatsoever  of  the  law  of 
Moses  thou  shalt  forbid  them,  shall  be  forbidden : 
whatsoever  thou  grantest  them,  shall  be  granted,  and 
that  under  a  sanction  made  in  heaven.'  Hence,  in 
that  instant,  when  he  should  use  his  keys,  that  is,  when 
he  was  now  ready  to  open  the  gate  of  the  gospel  to 
the  Gentiles,  (Acts  x.)  he  was  taught  from  heaven,  that 
the  consorting  of  the  Jew  with  the  Gentile,  which  be- 
fore had  been  bound  was  now  loosed ;  and  the  eating 
of  any  creature  convenient  for  food,  was  now  loosed, 
which  before  had  been  bound;  and  he,  in  like  manner. 
looses  both  these. 


24 

*•  Those  words  of  our  Saviour,  (John  xx.  23.)  if' host 
sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  to  them,  for  the  most 
part  are  forced  to  the  same  sense  with  these  before 
us,  when  they  carry  quite  another  sense.  Here  the 
business  is  of  doctrine  only,  not  of  persons  ;  there  of 
persons,  not  of  doctrine.  Here  of  things  lawful  or  un- 
lawful in  religion,  to  be  determined  by  the  apostles ; 
there  of  persons  obstinate  or  not  obstinate,  to  be  punish- 
ed by  them,  or  not  to  be  punished. 

"  As  to  doctrine,  the  apostles  were  doubly  instruct- 
ed. 1.  So  long  sitting  at  the  feet  of  their  Master, 
they  had  imbibed  the  evangelical  doctrine.  2.  The 
Holy  Spirit  directing  them,  they  were  to  determine 
concerning  the  legal  doctrine  and  practice,  being  com- 
pletely instructed  and  enabled  in  both,  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  descending  upon  them.  As  to  the  persons,  they 
were  endowed  with  a  peculiar  gift,  so  that  the  same 
Spirit  directing  them,  if  they  would  retain,  and  punish 
the  sins  of  any,  a  power  was  delivered  into  their 
hands  of  delivering  to  Satan,  of  punishing  with  diseases, ' 
plagues,  yea,  death  itself,  which  Peter  did  to  Ananias 
and  Sapphira  ;  Paul  to  Elymas,  Hymeneus,  and  Phile- 
tus"  &c. 

After  all  these  evidences  and  proofs  of  the  proper 
use  of  these  terms,  to  attempt  to  press  the  words  into 
the  service  long  assigned  them  by  the  Church  of  Rome, 
would,  to  use  the  words  of  Dr.  Lightfoot,  be  "  a  mat- 
ter of  laughter  or  of  madness.  No  church  can  use 
them  in  the  sense  thus  imposed  upon  them,  which  was 
done  merely  to  serve  secular  ends;  and  least  of  all 
can  that  very  church  that  thus  abuses  them." 

Any  further  observations  on  texts  relating  to  this 
subject  might  safely  be  omitted ;  for  we  may  confi 


25 

dently  presume  that  no  unprejudiced  reader  will  con- 
sider the  other  passages  of  the  New  Testament, 
brought  forward  in  the  second  chapter  of  the  Appen- 
dix, as  bearing  in  the  smallest  degree  on  sacramental 
confession.     Let  him,  however,  judge  for  himself. 

The  first  passage  is  this:  {Acts  19.)  "  And  many 
that  believed,  came  and  confessed,  and  showed  the  ir 
deeds."  Here  mention  is  made  of  confession  of  sins, 
but  is  any  thing  said  of  sacramental  absolution  ? 
These  people  openly  "  acknowledged  and  confessed 
their  manifold  sins  and  wickedness,  they  did  not  dis- 
semble nor  cloak  them  before  the  face  of  their  heaven- 
ly  Father;  but  confessed  them  with  an  humble,  lowly, 
penitent,  and  obedient  heart."  In  terms  approaching 
to  the  language  of  one  Protestant  church,  and  in  the 
spirit  of  them  all,  they  probably  vented  the  sorrows  of 
their  hearts,  "by  acknowledging  and  bewailing  their 
manifold  sins  and  wickedness,  which  from  time  to  time 
they  most  grievously  had  committed,  by  thought,  word? 
and  deed,  against  the  Divine  Majesty,  provoking  most 
justly  his  wrath  and  indignation  against  them ;"  by 
declaring  that  they  "  did  earnestly  repent,  and  were 
heartily  sorry  for  all  these  their  misdoings;  that  the 
remembrance  of  them  was  grievous  unto  them  ;  the  bur- 
then of  them  intolerable;"  and  "by  imploring  mercy 
and  forgiveness  of  all  that  was  past,  from  their  most, 
merciful  Father,  for  the  sake  of  his  Son,  and  their 
Lord  Jesus  Christ."  (Communion  Service.)  Such  was 
(he  nature  of  the  confession  made  by  these  people, 
and,  upon  this  unequivocal  evidence  of  their  repent- 
ance, they  received,  no  doubt,  from  St.  Paul,  in  vir- 
tue of  the  powers  of  his  sacred  ministry,  a  declaration 
lhat  iheir  sins  were  forgiven      Thus  ministerial  act 

4 


26 

which  is  termed  by  some  absolution,  is  still  exercised 
and  highlj  appreciated  in  the  Protestant  churches. 
Every  regular  minister  of  the  gospel  conceives  him- 
self authorized  to  preach  forgiveness  of  sins  to  repent- 
ing sinners ;  to  assure  them,  when  they  exhibit  satis- 
factory proofs  that  their  repentance  is  real  and  sin- 
cere, that  their  sins  are  remitted,  and  they  restored 
to  the  grace  and  favour  of  God.  "They  perceive, 
indeed,  in  the  words  of  their  sacred  commission,  a 
manifest  distinction  between  the  sinner  and  the  sin." 
It  is  not  said  "  whatsoever  sins,  but  whosesoever  sins 
ye  remit."  There  may  be  satisfactory  evidence  of 
repentance  without  a  minute  and  circumstantial  dis- 
closure of  all  the  offences  to  which  it  has  a  relation. 
(See  Bishop  Whitens  Second  Lecture.}  But  whenever 
such  evidence  appears,  as  in  the  case  before  us,  God's 
ministers  are  authorized  and  bound  to  pronounce  to 
his  people  the  absolution  of  their  sins.  And  whether 
the  words  of  this  absolution  be,  /  absolve  thee,  as  they 
appear  in  the  office  of  visitation  of  the  sick,  used  by  the 
church  of  England,  or,  I  declare  and  pronounce  you  to 
be  absolved,  as  used  exclusively  by  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal church  in  America,  in  neither  case  do  they 
furnish  any  countenance  to  the  sense  of  sacramental 
absolution,  as  understood  and  taught  by  the  Romish 
church.  The  forms  of  absolution,  however  express- 
ed, are  by  all  Protestants  held  to  be  merely  depreca- 
tory and  declaratory ;  and  indeed  in  this  light  were 
they  considered  by  the  whole  Christian  church  down 
to  the  thirteenth  century,  as  will  appear  hereafter. 

Upon  the  whole,  the  passage  before  us  is  perfectly 
analogous  to  that  in  the  second  chapter  of  St.  Mat- 
thew, where,  it  is  said.  "  all  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea, 


27 

and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan,  went  out  to 
John,  and  were  baptized  by  him  in  Jordan,  confessing 
their  sins."  Now,  will  the  Rev.  Gentleman  tell  us 
that  this  confession  affords  any  pretext  for  the  sacra- 
ment of  penance  ? 

With  respect  to  the  text  from  2  Cor.  v.  it  is 
really  surprising,  that  the  Rev.  Gentleman  should 
cite  it  in  support  of  his  doctrine.  "God,"  says  the 
apostle,  "  has  given  to  us  the  ministry  of  reconcilia- 
tion ;"  that  is,  he  has  commissioned  and  charged  us, 
the  pastors  of  his  church,  to  publish  and  announce  to 
mankind  his  reconciliation  to  our  sinful  race  in  Christ, 
or  through  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ,  as  the 
grand  principle  and  motive  of  this  reconciliation- 
'*  We  then  pray  you,  as  ambassadors  for  Christ  ;"  we 
pray  you  in  God's  name  ;  "  we  pray  you  in  Christ's 
stead,  be  ye  reconciled  to  God  ;"  that  is,  in  other 
words,  we  implore,  we  beseech  you,  in  the  name  of 
God,  and  as  the  ministers  of  Christ,  lay  hold  by  faith  on 
the  great  atonement  made  by  Christ  for  the  world,  as 
the  ground  and  assurance  of  your  reconciliation  with 
your  Maker.  Now,  what  has  the  ministry  of  such  re- 
conciliation as  this  to  do  with  auricular  sacramental 
confession  ?  It  relates  entirely  to  the  ministry  of  the 
word,  to  the  preaching  of  the  glad  tidings  of  salva- 
tion to  a  lost  world,  through  the  atoning  blood  of  the 
Redeemer. 

The  third  and  last  passage  quoted  by  the  Rev. 
Gentleman  is  from  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  of 
St.  James,  where  the  apostle  exhorts  the  faithful  to 
"  confess  their  sins  one  to  another."  This  text  can 
never  subserve  the  cause  of  sacramental  confession,  till 
it  be  shown,  that  to  "  confess  to  one  another,"  means 


28 

••  to  confess  exclusively  to  a  priest."  Besides,  as  un- 
derstood by  the  Rev.  Gentleman,  it  proves  too  much, 
and  therefore  proves  nothing:  for  if  it  enjoin  on  all 
Christians  the  obligation  of  mutual  confession,  and 
this  confession  be  sacramental,  then  must  priests  con- 
fess to  laymen,  as  well  as  laymen  to  priests.  But 
the  fact  is,  no  passage  could  have  been  selected  more 
unfortunately  to  uphold  the  Romish  doctrine  on  this 
head,  or  more  pointedly  to  enforce  the  Protestant 
opinions  :  for  why  are  we  exhorted  in  this  place  "  to 
confess  our  sins  to  one  another  ?"  Not  to  obtain  abso- 
lution of  a  priest ;  but,  as  the  context  clearly  proves, 
that  from  a  mutual  feeling  of  our  infirmities  and  sins, 
we  may  be  induced  to  pray  for  each  other,  as  "  the 
prayer  of  a  righteous  man  availeth  much" — and  by 
"  the  prayer  of  faith  our  sins  may  be  forgiven  us." 

The  arguments  for  pressing  this  passage  into  the 
cause  of  sacramental  confession,  are  really  too  trifling  to 
merit  further  notice  ;  and  therefore,  having  consider- 
ed all  the  scriptural  proofs  for  this  doctrine  contain- 
ed in  the  Appendix,  we  leave  them  to  the  decision  of 
the  candid  reader,  trusting  confidently  that  after  an 
impartial  investigation,  like  many  Roman  Catholic 
divines,  he  will  be  compelled  to  look  elsewhere  for 
the  divine  institution  of  this  sacrament,  and  to  adopt 
the  opinion  of  the  celebrated  Peter  Lombard,  styled 
by  way  of  eminence  the  master  of  the  sentences,  and 
considered  as  one  of  the  theological  luminaries  of  the 
twelfth  century.  "  Behold,"  says  he,  (lib.  4.  dist.  18. 
fol.  108,  109.)  "what  a  variety  of  opinions  has  been 
delivered  by  the  doctors  upon  these  things;  and 
amidst  so  great  a  variety,  what  are  we  to  abide  by  ? 
This  truly  we  can  say  and  think,  that  God  only  remit* 


29 

sins,  and  retains  them ;  and  yet  lie  has  granted  pow- 
er to  the  church  to  bind  and  to  loosen.  But  he  binds 
and  loosens  in  a  different  manner  from  the  church. 
For  he  remits  sin  by  himself  only,  because  he  both 
cleanses*  the  soul  from  the  inward  stain,  and  frees  her 
from  the  debt  of  eternal  death.  But  this  he  never 
granted  to  priests,  to  whom,  nevertheless,  he  gave 
the  power  of  binding  and  loosening:  that  is,  of  decla- 
ring men  either  bound  or  loosened.  Hence,  our  Lord 
first  restored  the  leper  to  health  by  himself,  then  sent 
him  to  the  priests,  that  by  their  judgment  he  might 
be  pronounced  to  be  cleansed."  Thus  explicitly 
does  this  eminent  divine,  so  late  as  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury, deliver  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformation,  and 
contradict  that  of  the  council  of  Trent.  We  proceed 
now  to  show,  that  Peter  Lombard  was  not  singular 
in  his  opinion;  that  it  prevailed  universally  in  the 
primitive  church,  and  that  the  present  Romish  doc- 
trine of  sacramental  confession  was  not  enacted  into  an 
article  of  faith,  and  indispensable  discipline,  previously  to 
the  thirteenth  century. 

PART   SECOND. 

The  testimony  of  the  ancient  fathers  docs  not  prove  sacramental 
confession. 

In  casting  his  eye  over  the  Appendix  to  the  Catholic 
Question,  from  page  forty-one,  the  reader  will  per- 
ceive a  formidable  host  of  ancient  Christian  fathers, 
marshalled  according  to  the  respective  centuries  of 
the  church,  and  all  bearing  testimony  to  sacramental 
confession.  These  passages  are  earnestly  recom- 
mended to  the  attentive  perusal  of  the   reader,  with 


30 

this  observation,  that  as  many  more  of  a  similar  cast 
might  readily  be  added  to  their  number,  as  would  fill 
the  pages  of  a  massive  folio.  The  doctrine  of  evan- 
gelical repentance  and  forgiveness  of  sins  was  always 
deemed  a  primitive  and  fundamental  article  of  the 
Christian  church.  What  wonder,  then,  that  all  her 
learned  and  orthodox  writers  should  be  found  so 
zealously  insisting  upon  its  necessity  and  truth  ?  But 
let  these  passages  be  examined  by  the  rules  of  sound 
criticism  and  unprejudiced  judgment,  and  I  will  ven- 
ture to  affirm,  that  they  mean  nothing  more  than 
warm  and  high-strained  exhortations  to  repent- 
ance, either  public  or  private,  and  can  never,  with- 
out manifest  violence,  be  distorted  to  inculcate  the 
necessity  of  sacramental  confession  as  a  means,  (necessi- 
tate medii,)  or  as  a  divine  precept,  (necessitate  praiceptij) 
for  obtaining  forgiveness  of  sin.  It  must  indeed  be 
readily  acknowledged,  that  on  this,  as  well  as  on 
many  other  opinions  and  points  of  discipline  existing 
in  their  day,  the  fathers  frequently  express  them- 
selves in  a  language  little  consistent  with  that  cool- 
ness and  accuracy  which  should  always  accompany 
polemical  disquisitions.  Being  ignorant  of  any  divine 
precept  respecting  minute  sacramental  confession,  and 
sacerdotal  absolution,  as  they  are  now  understood  in 
the  church  of  Rome,  they  indulged  in  a  laxity  and 
ambiguity  of  expression,  which  any  controversy  exist- 
ing at  the  time  would  have  induced  them  to  avoid. 
But  no  such  controversy  did  exist  in  their  day.  Con- 
fession to  a  priest,  as  a  divine  and  indispensable  institu- 
tion, was  for  many  ages  at  most  nothing  more  than  an 
embryo  doctrine,  and  never  arrived  at  its  full  birth 
till  the  council  of  Trent,  in   the  sixteenth  centuryr 


31 

ushered  it  into  the  world  under  all  its  guardian  sanc- 
tions and  anathemas. 

The  parade  of  passages  brought  forward  by  the 
Rev.  Gentleman  from   the   writings  of  the  primitive 
fathers,  and  of  those  who  came  after  them,  can  make 
nothing  to  his  purpose,  unless  these  passages  exhibit 
the  same  features  which  are  attributed  to  confession 
by  the  council  of  Trent.     Now,  will  any  person  say- 
that  such  is  the  fact?     When  St.  Ireneus  tells  us, 
{*App.    p.    42.)    that  a  sinful  woman,    "  penetrated 
with  grief,  spent  her  whole  time  in  confessing  and  be- 
wailing her  sins,  and  lamenting  the  crime  she  had 
been  led,  by  a  magician,  to  commit ;"  can  he  be  un- 
derstood to  mean  any  thing  more  than  is  daily  done 
in  Protestant  religious  assemblies?     Or  shall  we  be 
seriously  told  that  her  whole  time  was  spent  in  confess- 
ing the  same  sins  to  a  priest,  and  obtaining  from  him 
reiterated  absolution?     Is  there  in  the  passage  quo- 
ted from   Tertullian   (p.   42.)   the  slightest  allusion 
to  auricular  confession,   or  sacramental  absolution  ? 
As  a  point  of  discipline,  this  writer  must  have  enter- 
tained very  rigid  notions  concerning  the  disclosure  of 
sins,  and  we  know  that  his  inflexible  obstinacy  and 
severity  on  other  subjects,  often  led  him  into  hereti- 
cal opinions.     The   quotation   from   Origen    (p.  43.) 
means,  only,  that  "  if  we  reveal  our  sins  not  only  to 
God,  but  to  those  who  are  able  to  heal  our  wounds;" 
that  is,   "to  wise  and  devout  ministers,  who  can  ap- 
ply to  our  wounded  consciences  the  healing  balsam 
of  supplication  and  advice;"   then    will  our   sins   be 
blotted  out  by  Him  who  has  said,  "  behold,  I  blot  out 
iniquities  as  a  cloud  ;"  and  this  is  evidently  the  mean- 
ing of  the   passage — {see  Orig.  in  psal.  37,  horn.  2.) 


32 

With  respect  to  the  passages  cited  from  St.  Cyprian, 
(p.  44,  &c.)  and  other  fathers  of  the  two  following 
ages,  their  meaning  may  be  easily  ascertained  from  a 
short  view  of  church  discipline  prevailing  at  those  pe- 
riods. This  discipline  was  extended  gradually  to 
private  as  well  as  to  public  crimes.  At  first,  public  con- 
fession was  enjoined  only  for  public  offences,  but  when 
afterwards  the  benefits  resulting  from  this  practice 
became  apparent,  many  zealous  penitents,  in  the  first 
fervour  of  their  conversion,  willing  to  obtain,  for  sins 
committed  in  private,  the  same  consolatory  declara- 
tions which  the  church  pronounced  on  public  peni- 
tents, voluntarily  submitted  themselves  to  her  outward 
discipline,  and  by  a  confession  of  private  sins,  under- 
went the  penances  appointed  for  such  as  were  public. 
This  appears  to  be  the  case  from  Origen,  and  St.  Cy- 
prian, cited  in  the  Appendix,  from  St  Ambrose,  (lib. 
1.  cle  pamit.  c.  16.)  and  other  writers  of  those  times. 
That  this  public  confession  of  secret  faults,  however, 
might  be  attendod  with  the  greatest  advantages,  some 
prudent  minister  was  first  made  acquainted  with  them, 
by  whose  direction  the  penitent  might  understand 
what  sins  were  proper  for  the  public  notice  of  the 
church,  and  in  what  manner  the  penance  should  be 
performed.  For  this  reason  Origen  advises,  that 
great  care  should  be  used  in  choosing  a  skilful  physi- 
cian, to  whom  any  disclosures  of  this  kind  should  be 
tnade.  "  If  he  understand,"  (Orig.  ibide?n.)  "  and  fore- 
see, that  thy  disease  is  such  as  ought  to  be  declared 
in  the  assembly  of  the  whole  church,  and  cured 
there,  whereby,  perhaps,  others  may  be  edified,  and 
thou  thyself  more  easily  healed;  with  much  delibera- 


33 

tion,  and  by  the  very  skilful  counsel  of  thy  physician, 
must  this  be  done." 

In  process  of  time,  that  is  to  say,  soon  after  the  per- 
secution of  the  emperor  Decius,  the  penitent  was  no 
longer  at  liberty  to  choose  his  spiritual  director,  but 
by  the  general  consent  of  the  Bishops  it  was  ordain- 
ed, that,  in  every  church,  one  particular  discreet  mi- 
nister, should  be  appointed  to  receive  the  confessions 
of  such  as  relapsed  into  sin  after  baptism.  This  ad- 
dition to  the  penitential  canon,  is  expressly  noticed  by 
Socrates,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  {lib.  5.  c.  19.,) 
and  was  observed  in  the  church  for  a  considerable 
length  of  time.  It  was,  however,  finally  abolished, 
when  Nectarius  was  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  about 
one  hundred  and  forty  years  after  the  persecution  of 
Decius.  A  woman  confessed  publicly  a  sin,  in  which 
a  deacon  of  the  church  was  implicated,  and  a  load  of 
scandal  was  thus  cast  upon  the  clergy,  that  furnished 
an  inducement  to  discontinue  the  practice,  and  liberty 
was  now  allowed  to  every  one,  upon  the  private  ex- 
amination of  his  own  conscience,  to  approach  the 
Lord's  table.  (Socrat.  ibid,  and  Sozomen,  lib.  7.  histor. 
cap.  16.)  And  thus  was  a  rule  of  conduct  on  this  sub- 
ject adopted,  conformable  to  that  of  the  apostle — 
(1  Cor.  xi.  28.)  "Let  a  man  examine  himself,  and  so 
let  him  eat  of  that  bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup  ;"t 
and  agreeable  to  the  primitive  opinion  expressed  by 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,  when  he  asserts,  that  "  a  man's 
own  conscience  is  his  best  director  in  this  case j" 
(Jib.  1.  Strom.)  This  abolition  of  confession  is  an  im- 
portant event  in  the  history  of  the  church,  and  it  evi- 
dently shows  that  no  idea  of  the  divine  right,  and  in- 
dispensable necessity  of  the  sacrament  of  penance,then 

5 


'54 

prevailed  among"  Christians.  The  fact  stands  embla- 
zoned with  irresistible  evidence.  By  the  advice  of  a 
priest  named  Eudemon,  Nectarius  was  prevailed  upon 
to  abolish  this  practice :  and  "  this,"  says  Socrates, 
"  I  am  bolder  to  relate,  because  I  received  it  from 
Eudemon's  own  mouth.*'  The  historian  Sozomen 
agrees  with  Socrates,  and  adds,  moreover,  "  that  in 
his  time  (that  is,  in  the  reign  of  Theodosius  the  young- 
er) the  practice  was  still  discontinued,  and  that  thr 
Bishops  had,  in  a  manner,  every  where,  followed  the 
example  of  Nectarius." 

I  am  well  aware,  that  in  order  to  invalidate  such 
clear  and  unanswerable  evidence  against  the  unde- 
feasible  necessity  and  divine  institution  of  confession, 
the  cardinals  Bellarmine,  and  Baronius,  are  compelled 
to  question  the  veracity  of  these  historians,  or  to  con- 
tend, that  they  spake  only  of  the  abolition  of  public 
confession.  The  force  of  their  arguments,  however, 
will  be  readily  acknowledged  to  weigh  little  with  a 
Protestant,  when  it  is  known  that  they  were  disre- 
garded by  one  of  their  own  most  eminent  divines. 
The  learned  Suarez  reasons  thus  on  the  subject  : 
"  In  this  manner  Gratian  and  Baronius  answer,  un- 
derstanding these  words  of  public  confession.  But 
some  expressions  of  St  Chrysostom  are  greatly  re- 
•pugnant  to  this  interpretation  ;  by  which  he  seems  to 
exclude  the  ministry  of  the  tongue,  and  to  say,  that 
confession  ought  to  be  made  in  thought  only,"  as  horn. 
31.  in  Epis.  ad  Hebrceos.  "Confess  your  sins  before 
God  ;  pronounce  your  offences  to  your  true  Judge  in 
prayer,  not  with  your  tongue,  but  from  the  recollec- 
tion of  your  conscience.  Wherefore  this  exposition 
appears  to  me  probable,  that  Chrysostom  spake  of 


3vi 

private  confession."  (Suarez  in  Thorn,  part.  3.  torn. 
•1.  disp.  17.)  As  to  the  degree  of  credit  due  to  the 
narrative  of  Socrates  and  Sozomen,  the  same  learned 
divine  delivers  his  opinion  of  it,  in  the  following  words: 
(Suarez,  ibidem.)  "  Some  answer  by  saying  that  no 
credit  is  to  be  given  to  this  relation,  because  Sozo- 
men wrote  many  falsities,  and  because  Socrates,  being 
a  Novatian  heretic,  does  not  challenge  our  belief. 
Caesar  Baronius  answers  nearly  in  this  manner;  but  a 
falsehood  concerning  so  important,  so  public,  and  so 
manifest  a  matter,  could  not  easily  be  forged.  Some, 
therefore,  acknowledge,  that  he  (Nectarius)  annulled 
the  practice  of  penance."  Thomas  Waldensis,  a 
divine  much  commended  by  Dr.  Stapleton,  was  en- 
tirely of  Suarez's  opinion,  and  boldly  asserts,  {torn.  2. 
cap.  141.)  "  that  Nectarius  actually  annulled  confes- 
sion. 

In  conformity  with  this  alteration  in  church  disci- 
pline, St.  John  Chrysostom,  who  wras  the  immediate 
successor  of  Nectarius  in  the  see  of  Constantinople, 
expounding  the  words  of  the  apostle,  (1  Cor.  II.,) 
;'  Let  every  man  examine  himself,"  &c.  writes  as  fol- 
lows :  (horn.  28.)  "  He  does  not  bid  one  man  to  exa- 
mine another,  but  every  one  himself,  making  the 
judgment  private,  and  the  trial  without  witnesses." 
And  in  the  end  of  his  second  homily  on  Fasting,  which, 
in  some  editions,  is  the  eighth  dc  pamitentia,  he  ex- 
horts in  these  words :  "  within  thy  conscience,  none 
being  present  but  God,  who  sees  all  things,  enter  thou 
into  judgment,  and  into  a  search  of  thy  sins,  and  pass- 
ing  thy  whole  life  in  review,  bring  thy  sins  into  judg- 
ment in  thy  mind  :  reform  thy  excesses,  and  so  with 
a  pure  conscience   draw  near  to  that  sacred  table* 


36 

and  partake  of  that  holy  sacrifice."  Still,  however, 
he  solemnly  charges  ministers,  not  to  admit  known 
offenders  to  the  communion.  (See  horn.  82.  in  Matlh. 
edit.  Graze,  vel.  83.  edit.  Latin.}  From  the  writings  of 
this  father,  and  from  the  subsequent  practice  of  the 
church,  Ave  learn  that  the  godly  and  apostolic  disci- 
pline of  public  penance,  was  not  entirely  abrogated; 
on  the  contrary,  that  open  offenders  were  publicly 
censured,  and  pressed  to  make  public  confession  of 
their  sins.  Nectarius,  therefore,  merely  abolished  the 
obligation  of  disclosing  to  a  penitentiary,  such  sins  as 
were  of  a  secret  nature,  and  by  so  doing  exhibited 
an  unequivocal  proof  of  his  ignorance  of  sacramental, 
auricular  confession,  as  a  divine  and  indispensable  ob- 
ligation. With  two  short  observations  on  this  sub- 
ject, it  shall  be  dismissed  altogether.  One  is,  that 
the  form  of  confession  used  by  the  primitive  Chris- 
tians, was  canonical ;  or,  in  other  words,  belonged  to 
that  external  discipline  of  the  church,  which,  for  good 
reasons,  might  be  altered ;  but,  in  no  respect,  sacra- 
mental, and  of  divine  right.  The  other  observation 
is,  that  this  measure  of  Nectarius,  was  approved  of, 
not  only  by  his  successor,  St.  Chrysostom,  but  by 
most  of  the  Catholic  bishops,  whilst  the  Arian  and 
other  sectarian  churches,  as  Socrates  and  Sozomen 
inform  us  at  large,  retained  the  former  usage. 

About  seventy  years  after  the  innovation  intro- 
duced by  Nectarius,  a  custom  began  to  prevail  in 
Italy,  for  penitents  to  write  down  their  sins,  and  to 
have  them  read  publicly  in  the  church.  St.  Leo, 
bishop  of  Rome,  disapproved  of  this  practice,  and 
strictly  forbade  it.  His  own  words  on  this  head 
shall  be  laid  before  the  reader,  that  he  may  be  ena- 


37 

bled  to  judge  what  reference  they  have  to  sacramental 
confession  and  absolution  ;  or  how  far  the  Rev.  Gen- 
tleman is  justified  in  pronouncing  the  "  testimony  of 
this  father,  at  once  so  pointed,  and  so  strong  in  every 
point,  relating  to  confession  as  taught  in  the  Catholic 
church,  that  none  of  the  reformers  have  ever  offered 
to  give  a  solution."     (^pp>  p.  51.) 

The  Latin  text  is  before  me,  but  I  will  adopt,  in 
part,  the  translation  furnished  in  the  Appendix.  "I 
forbid,"  says  he,  "  the  recitation  in  public  of  the  de- 
claration, which  sinners  shall  have  made  of  their 
faults  in  detail,  giving  them  in  writing,  because  it  is 
sufficient  to  discover  to  the  priests  by  a  private  con- 
fession, the  sins  of  which  they  may  stand  guilty;  for 
although  we  should  commend  the  great  faith  of  those, 
who  fear  not  to  cover  themselves  with  confusion  be- 
fore men,  from  a  great  fear  of  God,  nevertheless,  be- 
cause all  men's  sins  are  not  of  that  kind,  that  they 
may  not  fear  to  publish  such  of  them  as  require  re- 
pentance, let  so  inconvenient  a  custom  be  removed; 
lest  many  be  driven  away  from  the  remedies  of  re- 
pentance, while  they  are  either  ashamed  or  afraid  to 
disclose  their  deeds  unto  their  enemies,  wherein 
they  may  be  exposed  to  the  danger  of  the  laws.  For 
that  confession  is  sufficient  which  is  offered  first  to 
God,  and  then  to  the  priest,  ivho  comes  as  an  intercessor 
for  the  sins  of  the  penitent.  (Epist.  80,  ad  Episcopos 
Camp.  Samnii  et  Piceni.y 

The  Rev.  Gentleman  omits  the  last  words,  al- 
though he  must  know,  that  on  them  turns  the  whole 
controversy  between  us.  '•  Sacerdos  pro  delictis 
pa?nitentium  precator  accedit."  "  He  prays  that  the 
sins  of  the  penitent  may  be  forgiven."     Without  the 


38 

most  distant  hint  at  judicial  sacramental  absolution ; 
although,  indeed,  the  words  may  seem  to  imply  abso- 
lution of  a  declaratory  and  intercessional  nature,  which 
the  Protestant  reformers  never  denied.  The  other 
passage  from  the  same  venerable  father,  is  equally  ir- 
relevant to  the  present  question.  It  speaks  of  the  sup- 
plications of  the  priests,  of  imposing  a  competent  penance, 
and  of  enjoining  a  wholesome  satisfaction  on  those  who 
confessed  their  sins,  according  to  the  discipline  then 
prevalent  in  the  church  ;  but,  of  absolution,  as  defined 
hy  the  council  of  Trent,  not  a  syllable  occurs.  It 
expresses  no  other  sentiment,  but  that  contained  in 
44  the  declaration  of  absolution  or  remission  of  sins," 
in  the  beginning  of  the  morning  service  of  the  Pro- 
testant Episcopal  church,  to  which  every  Protestant, 
I  believe,  would  willingly  say,  Amen. 

This  main  support  of  the  Romish  doctrine  of  con- 
fession, drawn  from  the  authority  of  St.  Leo,  and  by 
the  Rev.  Gentleman  deemed  so  conclusive,  as  to  bid 
defiance  to  the  whole  body  of  the  reformers,  being 
thus  easily  removed,  a  review  of  the  other  passages 
brought  forward  in  the  Appendix  from  the  fathers, 
might  readily  be  omitted  without  any  prejudice  to 
the  cause  of  truth :  and  if  the  reader  will  be  at  the 
pains  of  perusing  them,  he  will  be  led  principally  to 
observe,  as  many  divines  have  done,  and  as  Dr. 
Samuel  Johnson  expresses  himself  in  his  forcible  lan- 
guage, (Bos.  Life,  page  322.  vol.  ii.)  "  that  it  is  proba- 
ble, that  from  the  acknowledged  power  of  public  cen- 
sure, grew  in  time  the  practice  of  auricular  confes- 
sion. Those  who  dreaded  the  blast  of  public  repre- 
hension, were  willing  to  submit  themselves  to  the 
priest,  by  a  private  accusation  of  themselves ;  and  to 


3D 

obtain  a  reconciliation  with  the  church,  by  a  kind  oi 
clandestine  absolution  and  invisible  penance,  condi- 
tions with  which  the  priest  would,  in  times  of  igno- 
rance and  corruption,  easily  comply,  as  they  increas- 
ed his  influence,  by  adding  the  knowledge  of  secret 
sins,  to  that  of  notorious  offences,  and  enlarged  his 
authority  by  making  him  the  sole  arbiter  of  the  terms 
of  reconcilement.  From  this  bondage,  the  reforma- 
tion set  us  free.  The  minister  has  no  longer  power 
to  press  into  the  retirements  of  conscience,  to  torture 
us  by  interrogatories,  or  put  himself  in  possession  of  our 
secrets,  and  of  our  lives.  But  though  we  have  thuc 
controlled  his  usurpations,  his  just  and  original  pow- 
er remains  unimpaired  ;  and  this  power  consists  in  the 
ministry  of  the  word,  the  due  administration  of  the  sa- 
craments, and  the  forgiving  or  retaining  of  sins  in  the 
scriptural  meaning  of  the  words."  The  opinion  of 
the  learned  Beatus  Bhenanus,  the  friend  of  Erasmus, 
coincides  exactly  with  that  of  Dr.  Johnson.  Hk 
words  are  these:  (Argument,  in  lib.  Tertull.  de pamit :) 
•'  For  no  other  reason  have  we  here  alleged  the  testi- 
mony of  many  writers,  but  that  none  might  be  surpri- 
sed at  Tertullian's  silence  respecting  the  private  con- 
fession of  sins,  which,  as  far  as  Ave  can  conjecture, 
took  its  rise  from  public  confession,  in  order  that  the 
disclosure  of  secret  sins  mig-ht  also  be  secret.  We 
read  however,  no  where,  that  it  was  ever  enacted  a* 
a  precept."  Of  the  manifold  authorities  adduced  in 
the  Appendix  from  the  ancient  fathers,  not  one  asserts 
the  divine  institution  and  indispensable  obligation  of  sa- 
cramental confession;  and  to  obviate  any  apparent 
tendency  of  them  that  way,  passages  without  number 
might  easily  be  selected  to  prove  that  no  micb   onio- 


40 

ion  existed  in  their  time.  The  reader  may  tind  them 
detailed  in  all  Protestant  polemical  writers  on  this 
subject;  and  the  very  few  with  which  he  shall  here 
be  presented,  will  carry  with  them,  at  least,  sufficient 
conviction  to  every  thinking  mind,  that  the  opinions 
of  the  best  divines,  on  this  head,  before  the  council  of 
Trent,  were  various,  fluctuating,  and  unsettled. 

The  passage  from  St.  Chrysostom,  which  has  been 
already  mentioned,  marks  sufficiently  the  opinion  of 
the  eastern  church  in  his  day.  Do  not  the  following 
words  of  the  same  eminent  father  set  this  controversy 
at  rest?  "Let  the  inquiry  and  punishment  of  thine 
offences  be  made  in  thine  own  thoughts  :  let  the  tri- 
bunal at  which  thou  arraignest  thyself  be  without 
witness :  let  God  alone  see  thee  and  thy  confession." 
(Horn,  de  Pad.)  Again,  (//om.  31.  ad  Hceb.  et  in  Ps. 
59.  Horn,  de  Peed,  et  Horn.  5.  in  incarn.  Itemque  de  La- 
zaro.}  "  I  wish  thee  not  to  accuse  thyself  publicly, 
nor  before  others  :  but  I  wish  thee  to  obey  the  Pro- 
phet, who  says,  confess  thy  sins  before  God  ;  tell  thy  sins 
to  him,  that  he  may  blot  them  out.  If  thou  be  ashamed 
to  tell  unto  another,"  wherein  thou  hast  offended,  re- 
hearse them  every  day  in  thy  soul.  I  do  not  tell  thee 
to  confess  them  to  thy  fellow  servant,  who  may  up- 
braid thee,  but  tell  them  to  God,  who  may  cure  them. 
I  pray  and  beseech  you,  that  you  would  more  fre- 
quently confess  to  the  eternal  God,  and  enumerating 
all  your  trespasses,  implore  his  forgiveness.  I  do  not 
lead  you  into  a  theatre  of  your  fellow  servants,  I  seek 
not  to  disclose  your  crimes  before  men.  Open  your 
conscience  before  God,  unbosom  yourselves  to  him,  lay 
open  your  wounds  to  him,  who  is  the  best  physician, 
and  of  him  humbly  implore  a  medicine.''     Now.  I  put 


41 

it  to  the  candour  of  every  reader,  if  such  can  possibly 
be  the  sentiments  of  one  who  believes  in  the  divine 
right  and  obligation  of  auricular  confession  ?  Indeed, 
the  testimony  of  this  father,  appeared  so  pointed  to 
the  author  of  the  Glossce  on  the  Decretals,*  that  he 
positively  asserts,  {de  Peed.  dis.  5.  in  Peed.)  "  In  the 
Greek  church,  private  confession  of  mortal  sins  was 
not  necessary,  this  tradition  having  never  reached 
the  Greeks.  Some  maintain  that  forgiveness  of  sins 
may  be  obtained  without  any  confession  made  to  the 
church  or  the  priest ;"  and  he  then  cites  Saints  Am- 
brose, Austin,  and  Chrysostom  as  advocates  for  thib 
opinion.  Again,  we  find  these  words  in  the  same 
place,  "  But  that  the  sin  of  an  adult  person  cannot  be 
remitted  without  oral  confession,  which  is  false"  &c. 
These  last  words,  which  is  false,  have  since  been  or- 
dered to  be  expunged  in  a  famous  Index  Expurgato- 
rius. 

It  would  be  needless,  after  what  has  been  said,  to 
load  these  pages  with  counter-passages  from  the  fa- 
thers of  the  four  or  five  first  centuries,  directly  invali- 
dating the  consequences,  drawn  from  those  which  are 
produced  in  the  Appendix.  These  were  never  under- 
stood as  building  the  system  of  auricular  confession 
upon  a  divine  foundation ;  and  the  most  pointed  phrase- 
ology on  this  head,  flowing  either  from  the  glowing 
imagination  of  the  Greek,  or  the  embarrassed  theolo- 
gy, and  frequently  crude  conceptions,  of  the  Latin  fa- 
thers, never  met  with  more   respect  in  subsequent 

*  These  Decretals  contain  a  body  of  canon  law  and  decrees  of  the  great- 
est authority,  they  having  been  approved  by  Pope  Eugenius  III. ;  and 
Gratian,  who  commented  upon  them,  is  styled,  in  the  Lyons  edition  of  1518, 
"a  most  learned  divine." 

0 


42 

ages,  than  was  due  to  men  whose  labours,  though 
occasionally  inconsistent  and  erroneous,*  were,  never- 
theless, eminently  serviceable  in  defending  and  pro- 
moting gospel  truth  and  holiness.  The  authority  of 
these  primitive  writers  made  no  other  impression  on 
those  who  followed  them,  than  to  convince  them  that 
church  discipline  respecting  confession  and  repentance 
was  subject  to  variation,  and  a  point  still  open  to  dis- 
cussion, without  any  imputation  either  of  heresy  or 
schism. — Could  Laurence,  bishop  of  Novaria,  who 
flourished  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century,  have 
believed  confession  to  be  a  divine  and  indispensable 
institution  when  he  wrote  these  words?  "  After  bap- 
tism, God  has  appointed  the  remedy  within  thyself, 
he  has  placed  remission  in  thine  own  power,  that 
thou  needest  not  seek  a  priest,  when  thy  necessity 
requires;  but  thou  thyself  now,  as  a  skilful  and  prompt 
master,  mayest  amend  thine  error  within  thyself,  and 
wash  away  thy  sin  by  repentance."  (JLau.  Nov.  lib. 
Pat.  Tom.  vi.)  What  was  the  opinion  of  Cassian, 
the  celebrated  Ascetic,  when  he  tells  us,  (Collat.  20.  cap. 
viii.,)  "  If  any  are  withheld  through  bashfulness  from 
discovering  their  faults  to  men,  they  should  be  so 
much  the  more  diligent  and  constant  in  opening  them 
by  supplication  to  God  himself,  whose  custom  is  to  af- 
ford assistance  without  the  publication  of  men's 
shame,  and  not  to  upbraid  them  when  he  pardons  ?" 
What  was  the  opinion  of  St.  Prosper,  who  lived  also 
in  the  fifth  century,  when  he  asserts,  "  that  it  is  a  mat- 
ter of  indifference  whether  men  of  ecclesiastical  or- 
der, detect  their  sins  by  confession,  or  leaving  the 
world  ignorant  of  them,  voluntarily  separate  them- 

*  See  Daillc  de  usu  Patrum. 


43 

selves  for  a  time,  from  the  altar,  although  not  in  affec- 
tion, jet  in  the  execution  of  their  ministry,  and  so  be- 
wail their  corrupt  life  ?"  (de  Vita  Contemp.  lib.  ii.  c.  7.) 
The  advice  of  the  holy  abbot  Paphnutius,  related  by 
Cassian,  and  inserted  among  the  canons  collected  for 
the  use  of  the  English  church,  in  the  time  of  the  Sax- 
ons, under  the  title  de  pcea  soli  Deo,  conjitenda,  is  very 
remarkable.  His  words  are  these  :  "  Who  is  it,  that 
can  humbly  say,  I  made  my  sin  known  unto  thee,  and 
my  iniquity  I  have  not  hidden,  that  to  this  confession 
he  may  deserve  to  add  what  follows,  and  thou  forgav- 
est  the  iniquity  of  my  heart :  but  if  bashfulness  do  so 
draw  thee  back,  that  thou  blushest  to  reveal  them  be- 
fore men,  cease  not  by  continual  supplication  to  con- 
fess them  to  him  from  whom  they  cannot  be  hidden," 
&c.  (Cass.  Coll.  xx.  c.  8.)  "  Tears  wash  away  the  sin 
which  the  voice  is  ashamed  to  confess,"  says  St.  Am- 
brose, (Lib.  x.  Com.  in  Luc.  c.  22.,)  "  tears  confess  our 
crime  without  offerins;  violence  to  our  bashfulness;" 
from  which  passage  the  Glossa  upon  Gratian  infers, 
if,  out  of  shame,  a  man  will  not  confess,  tears  alone 
blot  out  his  sin."  (Glos.  de  pcea  dist.  i.  c.  2.  lachrymce.} 
In  the  ages  which  followed  the  irruption  of  the 
northern  hordes  into  Christendom,  when  the  lamp  of 
science  was  nearly  extinguished,  and  the  fair  features 
of  religion  greatly  obscured  by  the  prevalence  of  dis- 
gusting ignorance,  and  its  offspring  superstition  ;  when, 
except  by  a  chosen  few,  reference  was  seldom  had  to 
the  all-sufficiency  of  Christ's  atonement,  and  to  an 
entire  reliance  on  his  full  and  effectual  satisfaction  for 
the  remission  of  sins,  confession  and  bodily  austerities 
naturally  obtained  a  great  degree  of  importance  from 
fheir  supposed  efficacy  in  quieting  the  consciences  of 


44 

sinners.  Accordingly,  we  are  not  surprised  to  meet 
with  recommendations  to  confession,  amounting  near- 
ly to  precepts,  in  some  of  the  writers  and  councils  of 
the  middle  ages.  Yet  a  germ  of  good  sense  and 
scripture  knowledge,  still  vegetated  in  the  church, 
which  neither  the  jargon  of  scholastic  theology,  nor 
the  cullability  of  the  ignorant  multitude,  was  ever  able 
to  wither.  The  obligation  of  auricular  confession  and 
sacerdotal  absolution,  remained  for  many  ages  a  sub- 
ject of  altercation  and  doubt,  nor  was  it  till  the  Pro- 
testants, in  the  valleys  of  Piedmont,  began  to  settle  the 
doctrines  of  the  gospel  upon  their  scriptural  founda- 
tions, that  any  council  conceived  it  to  be  its  duty  or 
interest  to  pronounce  definitively  upon  it. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  lead  the  reader  through  a 
long  catalogue  of  writers,  who  lived  before  the  coun- 
cils of  Lateran  and  Trent,  as  a  few  prominent  autho- 
rities will  answer  the  purpose  of  a  volume,  and  will 
convince  the  reader  that  it  is  a  real  imposition  on  the 
public,  to  assert  that  throughout  every  age  of  the 
church,  previously  to  these  councils,  uniformity  of  opi- 
nion existed  on  the  obligation  of  confession. 

Bede,  who  lived  in  the  eighth  century,  would  have 
us  confess  our  daily  and  light  sins  one  unto  another, 
but  open  the  uncleanness  of  the  greater  leprosy  to  the 
priest.  Alcuin,  who  wrote  shortly  after,  advises  the 
"  confession  of  all  the  sins  that  can  be  remembered  :" 
but  it  appears  from  this  same  Alcuin,  and  Haymo  of 
Halberstadt,  who  wrote  soon  after  him,  that  "  some 
would  not  confess  their  sins  to  the  priest,"  but  said, 
"  it  was  sufficient  for  them  that  they  did  confess  their 
<ins  to  God  alone."  {Ale.  Epis.  26.  Haym.  in  Evang. 
m  Dom.  15.  Post  Petit.)     Others  confessed  their  sins 


4S 

to  the  priests,  but  not  fully,  as  appears  from  the 
council  of  Cavaillon,  held  in  the  reign  of  Charle- 
magne. Great  stress  is  laid  on  the  determinations  of 
this  council,  by  the  advocates  of  the  sacrament  of  pe- 
nance ;  but  to  what,  in  fact,  do  they  amount  ?  They 
censure,  though  but  lightly,  this  partial  confession, 
and  then  a  free  acknowledgment  is  made,  that  it  re- 
mained still  a  question,  whether  men  should  confess 
to  God,  or  to  priests  also.  The  words  of  the  council 
are  these,  which  may  serve  as  a  key  to  many  other 
authorities  from  councils  and  scholastic  writers,  pro- 
duced in  the  Appendix,  with  imposing  prodigality. 
"  Some  say,  that  they  ought  to  confess  their  sins  to 
God  only,  and  some  think,  that  they  ought  to  be  con- 
fessed to  the  priests,  both  which  practices  exist,  not 
without  great  fruit  in  the  holy  church  ;  namely,  thus, 
that  we  both  confess  our  sins  to  God,  who  is  the  for- 
giver  of  sins,  saying  with  David,  '  I  have  acknow- 
ledged ray  sin  unto  thee,  and  my  iniquity  I  have  not 
hidden,  and  thou  forgavest  the  iniquity  of  my  sin :' 
And,  according  to  the  apostle,  we  confess  our  sins  to 
one  another,  and  pray  for  one  another,  that  we  may 
be  healed.  The  confession,  therefore,  which  is  made 
to  God,  purges  away  sin,  but  that  which  is  made  to  the 
priest,  teaches  in  what  manner  they  should  be  purged 
away.  l  For  God,  the  author  and  bestower  of  salvation 
and  health,  sometimes  gives  it  by  the  invisible  admin- 
istration of  his  power,  sometimes  by  the  operation  of 
physicians.'"  (Con.  Cavaillon,  cap.  33.  Anno  813.) 
In  the  Psenitential  of  Theodore,  Archbishop  of  Can- 
terbury, who  died  in  690,  are  found  these  remarkable 
words,  "  It  is  lawful  that  confession  be  made  to  God 
alone,  if  it  be  requisite."     This  document,  Archbish- 


46 

op  Usher  tells  us,  he  transcribed  from  an  ancient  copy 
in  Sir  Robert  Cotton's  library.  From  this  Paeniten- 
tial,  Gratian  erroneously  quotes  the  canon  above 
mentioned,  but  in  doing  so,  he  asserts  that,  in  the 
eighth  century,  the  Greeks  denied  the  necessity  of 
confession  except  to  God  alone,  "  Quidam  Deo  solum- 
modo  confiteri  debere  peccata  dicunt,  ut  Gireci."  (dc 
Pcea.  (list.  1.  cap.  ult.)  Whatever  doctrines  or  disci- 
pline afterwards  prevailed  in  the  Greek  church,  can 
have  no  bearing  on  the  present  subject,  and  must  ren- 
der the  numerous  quotations  of  the  Rev.  Gentleman 
to  press  that  church  into  his  service,  nugatory  and 
useless.  The  opinions  of  theologians  in  the  twelfth 
century,  are  thus  clearly  stated  by  the  learned  Gra- 
tian :  "  upon  what  authority,"  says  he,  "  or  upon  what 
strength  of  arguments  both  these  opinions  are  ground- 
ed," (viz.  of  the  necessary  or  optional  practice  of 
external  confession,)  "  I  have  briefly  laid  open.  But 
to  Avhich  of  them  we  should  rather  adhere,  is  reserv- 
ed to  the  judgment  of  the  reader.  For  both  of  them 
have  for  their  advocates  wise  and  religious  men." 
(de  Pcea.  dist.  1.  cap.  89.)  Such  was  the  state  of  this 
controversy  in  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century,  and 
such  it  continued  until  the  council  of  Lateran,  in  1215, 
riveted  upon  the  understandings  and  consciences  of 
Christians,  a  double  yoke  of  unprecedented  severity, 
by  decreeing  at  the  same  time,  under  horrid  anathe- 
mas, the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  and  the  obli- 
gation of  confession. 

The  reader  may  expect,  and  probably  also  wish, 
that  this  part  of  the  controversy  might  terminate  here, 
but  the  range  taken  in  the  Appendix  is  so  wide,  and 
marked   with  such  an  air  of  confidence  and  triumph. 


47 

that  not  to  notice  it  in  some  degree,  might  appear  like 
an  abandonment  of  truth  to  the  glare  of  cumbrous  and 
ostentatious  theology.  Whatever  displays  are  made 
in  the  Appendix  of  the  advantages  of  confession,  of  the 
exhortations  of  pious  men  to  practise  it,  of  its  benefits  to 
church  and  state,  of  the  improbability  of  &  voluntary  sub- 
mission to  so  humiliating  a  practice ;  (p.  80,  81  :)  of  its 
having  been  adopted  by  sick  and  dying  persons,  by  ar- 
mies, kings,  and  emperors,  or  rather  by  some  of  each  of 
these  descriptions  of  persons,  of  its  having  been  sanc- 
tioned by  miracles  Mid  prodigies  ;  (p.  68,  69 ;)  all  these 
add  no  force  to  arguments  in  support  of  auricular  sa- 
cramental co?ifcssion,  and  judicial  absolution,  unless  it  can 
be  proved  that  such  was  the  very  confession  always 
understood  and  practised  in  the  church,  and  after- 
wards defined  and  commanded  by  the  council  of  Trent. 
Now,  this  never  was,  and  never  can  be  proved.  From 
the  wholesome  discipline  of  the  primitive  church,  as 
sanctioned  by  the  Scriptures,  for  the  legitimate  exer- 
cise of  the  ministerial  office  in  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  reconciliation  of  the  sinner,  confession  underwent 
many  gradual  alterations  :  it  was  occasionally  modifi- 
ed, as  circumstances  required,  or  as  the  warm  imagi- 
nations of  some  ecclesiastical  rulers,  and  the  interest- 
ed views  of  others,  added  to  its  importance.  Like 
many  bodily  austerities  and  humiliating  restraints, 
confession  began  to  be  unduly  appreciated,  and  in 
the  lamentable  depression  of  biblical  knowledge  and 
sound  theology,  was  too  often,  as  was  observed  above, 
made  a  substitute  for  faith  in  the  atonement  and  in- 
tercession of  Christ.  It  is  among  those  galling  fetters 
and  grievous  burthens,  which  a  mistaken  devotion 
has.  in  every  religion,  deemed  effectual  towards  pro- 


48 

pitiating  the  offended  deity,*  and  although  a  manifest 
perversion,  is  a  striking  evidence  of  the  innate  and 
universal  conviction  of  mankind,  that  without  some 
adequate  satisfaction,  some  painful  sacrifice,  there  can 
be  no  forgiveness  of  sins.f  Being  considered  as  an 
observance  conducive  to  piety  by  men  of  retired  and 
scholastic  habits,  it  was  first  established  as  a  point  of 
discipline,  and  by  the  Lateran  council  enjoined  as  such. 
It  had  previously,  indeed,  been  adopted  by  many,  who 
venerated  every  institution  recommended  in  the  clois- 
ter, or  practised  by  such  as  were  renowned  for  their 
holiness.  Supported  by  idle  and  fictitious  tales,  to 
enforce  the  advantages,  and  then  the  necessity  of  the 
practice,  it  arrived,  by  imperceptible  gradations,  to 
such  importance,  as  to  become  an  indispensable  pre- 
cept. Will  the  Rev.  Gentleman  deny,  that  this  can 
be  the  rise  and  progress  of  such  burthensome  observ- 
ances ?  Can  he  point  out,  for  instance,  the  time,  when 
the  strict  obligation  of  reciting  daily  the  ecclesiastical 
office,  or  breviary,  under  the  penalty  of  damnation, 
was  imposed  upon  the  Roman  clergy;  or  will  he  con- 
sider it  of  divine  appointment?  Yet  this  is  also  a 
most  burthensome  task  imposed  upon  themselves 
under  the  most  awful  sanctions,  and  frequently,  it  is 
to  be  feared,  giving  rise  to  a  mockery  of  religious  wor- 
ship in  light  minds,  or  creating  uneasiness  in  the  con- 
sciences of  the  scrupulously  pious. 

From  what  has  been  already  said,  the  reader  I 
trust  will  feel  himself  authorized  to  conclude,  that  the 
divine  right  of  sacramental  confession,  was  unknown  in 

*  eheu ! 
Quam  temere  in  nosmet  legem  sancimus  iniquam  ? — Horacr. 

*  See  Magee  on  the  Atonement,  No.  V, 


49 

the  church  before  the  thirteenth  century.  And,  in- 
deed, where  was  the  necessity  of  a  solemn  decree  by 
the  Lateran  council,  if  the  doctrine  had  been  previ- 
ously established  ?  However,  this  important  fact  can 
be  placed,  I  think,  beyond  the  reach  of  uncertainty. 

Many  passages  from  the  writings  of  Bonaventure} 
Thomas  Aquinas,  and  others,  may  be  found  in 
Protestant  polemical  authors,  pointedly  asserting, 
that  before  the  council  of  Lateran,  in  1215,  the 
opinion  of  confessing  to  God  only  was  allowed  in  the 
church  ;  and  the  fear  of  satiating  the  reader  with  quo- 
tations, is  the  only  motive  for  omitting  them  :  one  or 
two  may  suffice.  "The  master  of  the  sentences," 
says  St.  Thomas,  and  Gratian  "  mentions  this  as  an 
opinion,"  that  is,  the  necessity  of  confession  to  God 
alone;  "but  now,  after  the  determination  of  the  church 
under  Innocent  III.  it  is  to  be  accounted  heresy." 
The  date,  therefore,  of  this  dogma,  goes  no  further 
back  than  the  thirteenth  century :  and  however  the 
Rev.  Gentleman  may  qualify  as  heretical  all  the  Pro- 
testant churches  of  the  present  day,  yet  surely,  if  he 
credit  the  angelical  doctor,  he  will  hardly  extend  his 
denunciations  to  those  divines  who  lived  before  the 
council  of  Lateran.  (Jlpp.  p.  69.)  Nay,  since  that 
council,  many  orthodox  Roman  Catholic  writers  have 
questioned  the  absolute  validity  of  its  decisions;  of 
which  number  are  the  commentator  on  the  decretals 
of  Gratian,  Scotus,  the  abbot  Panormitanus,  Michael 
of  Bologna,  and  some  others,  to  say  nothing  of  Eras- 
mus, Rhenanus,  cardinal  Cajetan,  and  Richer,  divines 
of  a  still  more  modern  date.  It  appears  from  Pere 
Richard's  analyse  des  conciles,  published  at  Paris,  with 
approbation  of  the  censors,  in  1772,  in  four  volume* 

7 


50 

quarto,  that  sinners  were  sometimes  refused  absolu- 
tion in  the  article  of  death  ;  yet  were  they  admitted  to 
the  Eucharist  without  the  reconciliatory  imposition  of 
hands,  to  use  the  words  of  the  council  of  Orange  in 
four  hundred  forty-one,  which  is  sufficient  for  the  conso- 
lation of  the  dying.  And  afterwards  the  council  of 
Mentz,  in  eight  hundred  forty-seven,  {can.  27.)  men- 
tions it  as  the  discipline  of  that  time,  that  criminals 
were  to  receive  the  Eucharist  if  they  appeared  truly 
penitent,  and  had  confessed  their  si?is  to  God:  for,  says 
Pere  Longueval  in  his  history  of  the  Gallican  church, 
{torn.  S.  p.  549.)  "  they  were  not  always  allowed  to 
confess  to  a  priest."  Thus  do  modern  divines  of  the 
Romish  communion  freely  deliver  the  opinions  of  the 
primitive  and  middle  ages  on  the  subject  of  confes- 
sion. They  do  not  even  hint  that  they  were  founded 
on  any  divine  right,  and  indispensable  necessity — 
and  the  learned  Richer,  after  passing  in  review  all 
the  passages  from  the  fathers,  &c.  mentioned  in  the 
Appendix,  ingenuously  acknowledges,  that  none  of 
them  relate  to  sacramental  confession.  "  Quorum 
patrum  testimonia  perperam  a  nonnullis  ad  nostram 
sacramentalem  confessionem  trahuntur." 

With  respect  to  the  benefits  of  auricular  confession, 
so  much  insisted  on  by  the  Rev.  Gentleman,  it  might 
be  readily  proved  that  it  was  deemed  a  dangerous  in- 
stitution, even  by  the  popes  themselves.  We  find 
that  bulls  have  been  published  by  Pius  IV.  and 
Gregory  XV. — "  Contra  sacerdotes,  qui  mulieres  pae- 
nitentes  in  actu  confessionis  ad  actus  inhonestos  pro- 
vocare  et  allicere  tentant."  Young  and  pampered 
ecclesiastics,  placed  in  delicate  situations  of  this  kind, 
cannot  be  always  exempt  from  temptation  :  nor  is  the 


51 

fact  to  be  unnoticed,  that  young  persons  of  either  sex, 
and  more  particularly  those  of  a  timorous  and  modest 
disposition,  by  the  information  they  must  acquire  from 
their  tables  of  sins,  the  circumstantial  cautions  given 
them  against  vice,  and  the  details  into  which  they 
must  necessarily  enter,  frequently  have  their  imagina- 
tions perplexed  and  tortured  by  unreasonable  appre- 
hensions of  continual  danger  and  mortal  guilt.  By 
investigating  all  the  ramifications  of  sinful  acts  and 
propensities,  they  become  far  better  acquainted  with 
vice  in  all  its  shapes,  and  their  minds  more  harassed, 
if  not  more  defiled,  than  pious  Christians  of  other  de- 
nominations :  For  it  is  found  by  experience,  that  no- 
thing contributes  more  to  the  progress  of  vice  in  some 
persons,  by  whom  it  might  otherwise  have  never  been 
admitted,  than  the  knowledge  that  it  has  sometimes 
been  actually  committed.  A  natural  aversion  and 
shame  attends  the  commission  of  certain  crimes,  often- 
times alone  sufficient  to  prevent  them,  were  it  never 
acknowledged  that  such  propensities  had  ever  been 
indulged. 

However,  allowing  all  that  is  said  in  the  Appen- 
dix relating  to  the  advantages  attending  confession  of 
sins,  which  advantages  are  often  very  questionable, 
and,  unless  perfectly  optional,  sometimes  counterba- 
lanced by  much  delusion  and  mischief;  allowing  that 
Protestant  divines,  and  churches  in  general,  contend 
earnestly  for  the  exercise  of  the  power  left  by  Christ 
in  the  church  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  by  declaring 
in  his  name  those  to  be  absolved  who,  with  sincere 
faith  and  true  repentance,  confess  and  deplore  their 
manifold  sins  and  wickedness,  (and  the  words  cited 
from  the  great  and  good  bishop  Andrews  mean  no- 


52 

thing  more)  (<App>  p.  96.,)  Allowing,  I  say,  all  this, 
and  as  much  more  of  the  same  strain  as  the  Rev. 
Gentleman  may  choose,  what  additional  weight  can  it 
add  to  his  opinions  ?  Will  he  pretend  that  Protestant 
divines,  when  appreciating  the  advantages  of  confes- 
sion, consider  it  in  the  same  light  as  he  does,  or  that 
they  ascribe  to  it  any  divine  right  or  judicial  absolu- 
tion ?  If  not,  then  such  authorities  make  nothing  to 
his  purpose.  The  passage,  indeed,  which  he  quotes 
from  a  Mr.  Bayle  (p.  95.)  is  more  exactly  in  point : 
but  who  this  episcopalian  doctor  of  the  English  church 
may  be,  the  writer  of  this  Reply  has  yet  to  learn. 
Surely  the  Rev.  Gentleman  cannot  be  so  far  deceived 
as  to  mistake  this  Mr.  Bayle  for  the  celebrated  author 
of  the  general,  historical,  and  critical  Dictionary  ;  if  so, 
the  English  church  will  freely  resign  all  her  preten- 
sions to  him,  and  the  Romish,  or  any  other  commu- 
nion, is  welcome  to  his  authority.  Should,  however, 
there  be  possibly  such  a  writer  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  or  the  Rev.  Gentleman  have  mistaken  his 
name,  he  must  be  too  obscure  to  oppose  any  weight 
of  testimony  against  the  explicit  and  acknowledged 
doctrine  of  all  the  reformed  churches.*  Therefore, 
the  divine  right  and  indispensable  obligation  of  sacra- 
mental confession,  was  no  article  of  Christian  faith  be- 
fore the  thirteenth  century ;  and  all  the  declamation 
employed  to  establish  it  is  a  mere  sophism,  which  the 
whole  course  of  church  history  tends  to  refute.  With 
good  reason,  therefore,  did  the  learned  Richer  con- 
clude,  that   "  inward  confession   is   indeed   of  divine 

*  Since  writing  the  above,  I  find  the  passage  is  from  Dr\  Bayly,  bishop  of 
Bangor  in  the  reign  of  James  I.  The  Puritans  claimed  the  book  from  which  it 
is  taken  ;  be  this  as  it  ma}',  his  authority  avails  nothing  against  the  practice  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  the  meaning  of  her  liturgy. 


53 

right,  but  outward  is  only  of  positive  right,  and  subject 
to  such  alterations  as  the  church  may  appoint.1'  "  Qua- 
propter  fide  Catholica  tenendum  internam  confes- 
sionem,  et  mentis  mutationem  esse  juris  divini  et  na- 
turalis  plane  immutabilis,  modum  vero  extrinsecum  ut 
secreto,  aut  publice  peccata  confiteamur  omnino  a 
prudenti  Ecclesia?  dispensatione  pendere;  consequen- 
terque  modum  hunc  externum  confitendi  juris  esse 
positivi,  aut  Ecclesiastici  variabilis,  sicut  et  ritus  reli- 
quorum  sacramentorum,  quos  Christus  reliquit  Eccle- 
siae  moderation!. " 

This  is  nearly  the  general  opinion  of  Protestants, 
and  with  an  exception  or  two,  is  rational  and  wise ; 
how  it  can  be  reconciled  to  the  decrees  of  the  coun- 
cil of  Trent,  which  it  is  alleged  to  support,  must  be 
left  to  the  ingenuity  of  its  advocates  to  decide. 

We  say  that  the  nature  of  ministerial  absolution  as 
defined  by  the  council  of  Trent,  and  now  practised  in 
the  church  of  Rome,  appears  to  be  repugnant  to  an- 
cient usage,  to  the  principles  of  common  sense,  and 
unsupported  by  scripture.  With  respect  to  ancient 
usage,  what  can  be  more  conclusive  than  the  conces- 
sions of  some  of  the  Romish  divines  themselves  ?  Mo- 
rinus  (De  pcea.  lib.  8.  c.  8,  9,  10,  and  20.)  acknow- 
ledges, that  the  judiciary  form,  labsolve,  instead  of  the 
deprecatory,  may  Christ  absolve,  was  not  introduced 
before  the  eleventh  or  twelfth  century  ;  till  which  time, 
absolution  was  invariably  given  by  prayer,  as  is  evi- 
dent from  many  of  the  ancient  rituals  published  by 
this  writer.  We  read  moreover  in  the  works  of 
Thomas  Aquinas,  (ppusc.  22.  cap.  5.)  that  in  his  days 
a  learned  writer  objected  to  the  indicative  form  of  ab- 
solution then  used  by  the  priest,  /  absolve  thee  from 


54 

all  thy  sinSi  and  preferred  the  mode  of  deprecation  and 
prayer;  alleging  that  this  was  the  opinion  of  Guliel- 
mus  Altisiodorensis,  William  of  Paris,  and  cardinal 
Hugo,  and  that  thirty  years  had  scarcely  elapsed, 
since  all  made  use  of  this  form  only,  M  Absolutionem 
et  remissionem  tribuat  tibi  omnipotens  Deus."  "  May 
Almighty  God  give  unto  thee  absolution  and  forgive- 
ness." The  answer  of  Thomas  Aquinas  to  this  as- 
sertion may  be  seen  in  his  small  treatise  "  Of  the  form 
of  Absolution,"  which  on  this  occasion  he  wrote  to 
the  general  of  his  order.  One  ancient  form  of  abso- 
lution used  in  the  Latin  church  was  this  :  "  Almighty 
God  be  merciful  unto  thee,  and  forgive  thee  all  thy 
sins,  past,  present,  and  to  come,  visible  and  invisible, 
which  thou  hast  committed  before  him  and  his  saints, 
which  thou  hast  confessed,  or  by  some  negligence,  or 
forgetfulness,  or  evil  will,  hast  concealed :  God  deliver 
thee  from  all  evil  here  and  hereafter,  preserve  and 
confirm  thee  always  in  every  good  work ;  and  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God,  bring  thee  unto  the  life 
which  remaineth  without  end."  (Confitentium  ceremo- 
nim,  Antiqu.  edit.  Colon,  an.  1 530.)  As  late  as  the  be- 
ginning of  the  seventeenth  century,  we  have  the  opin- 
ion of  Jeremiah,  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  on 
this  subject : "  whatsoever  sins,"  says  he,  "  the  penitent, 
either  from  shamefacedness,  or  forgetfulness,  leaves  un- 
confessed,  we  pray  thee,  most  merciful  God,  that 
those  also  may  be  pardoned  unto  him,  and  we  are 
persuaded,  that  he  shall  receive  pardon  of  them  from 
God."  {Jerem.  Pair.  C.  P.  respons.  1.  ad.  Tubingences, 
cap.  11.)*     Alexander  of  Hales  and  Bonaventure, 

*  Dr.  Cowell,  in  his  account  of  the  Greek  church,  declares,  on  his  person- 
al knowledge,  that  confession  is  not  required  from  all :  although  there  are 


55 

speaking  of  the  form  of  absolution  used  in  their  time, 
observe  "  that  prayer  was  premised  in  the  optative, 
and  absolution  added  afterwards  in  the  indicative 
mood;'1''  hence  they  conclude  that  the  priest's  prayer 
obtains  grace,  his  absolution  presupposes  it;  that  by 
the  former  he  ascends  unto  God,  and  procures  par- 
don for  the  fault,  by  the  latter  he  descends  to  the  sin- 
ner, and  reconciles  him  to  the  church."  (Alex.  Halens. 
sum.  part  4.  quces.  21. — Bonav.  in  4  senten.  dist.  18.  art. 
2.  qums.  1.)  "  Although  a  man  be  loosed  before  God," 
says  the  master  of  sentences,  (Jib.  4.  sent.  dist.  18.) 
u  yet  is  he  not  accounted  loosened  in  the  face  of  the 
church,  except  by  the  judgment  of  the  priest."  This 
loosening  by  the  judgment  of  the  priest,  is  generally 
considered  by  the  fathers  as  nothing  more  than  a  re- 
storation of  offenders  to  the  peace  of  the  church,  or  a 
re-admission  of  them  to  the  holy  communion,  and  ac- 
cordingly they  usually  express  it  by  the  terms  of 
"bringing  them  to  the  communion  ;"  (Concil  Laodinan. 
can.  2.)  "  reconciling  them  to,  or  with  the  communion;" 
(Cone.  Eliberitan.  can.  72.)  "  restoring  the  communion 
to  them;"  (Ambr.  de  pcea.  lib.  1.  &c.)  "  admitting  them 
to  fellowship;"  (Cypr.  epist.  53.)  "granting  them 
peace ;  &c."  (Ibid.  Src.)  Now  in  all  these  acts  of 
discipline  we  never  find  any  using  the  form,  /  absolve 
thee  from  all  thy  sins,  which  words,  nevertheless,  the 
council  of  Trent  decrees  to  be  "  the  form  of  the  sacra- 
ment of  penance,  and  in  which  its  virtue  and  efficacy 
principally  consist."  (App.  p.  12.) 


confessor3  appointed  in  the  several  districts ;  very  few  in  proportion  to  the 
population.  Dr.  Smith,  in  his  account  of  the  same  church,  represents  con- 
fession as  required  of  all,  but  governed  in  extent  by  the  prudence  of  the  con- 
fessing party,  and  according  to  his  knowledge  of  his  own  case. 


56 

It  would  be  a  waste  of  labour  to  prosecute  this  sub- 
ject any  further  in  order  to  establish  the  fact,  that 
before  the  councils  of  Lateran  and  Trent,  neither  the 
indispensable  necessity  of  sacramental  confession, 
nor  the  present  form  of  absolution,  nor  penance 
as  a  sacrament  of  the  Christian  church,  were 
doctrines  admitted  and  believed  araons;  her  articles  of 
faith  :  they  possessed  not  the  sanction  arising  from  all 
ages,  all  places,  and  all  Christian  churches.  They 
were  never  considered  as  a  dogma,  ("  quod  semper, 
quod  ubique,  quod  ab  omnibus")  which  was  numbered 
among  the  tenets  of  the  Catholic  church. 

And,  indeed,  how  could  this  practice,  as  defined 
and  enjoined  by  the  council  of  Trent,  have  been  ever 
viewed  in  this  light?  Does  not  the  idea  of  a  man's 
sitting  in  judgment  over  the  most  secret  sins  of  his 
fellow  mortals,  and  pronouncing  definitively  and  juri- 
dically upon  them,  effectually  removing  the  guilt  of 
some,  or  retaining  that  of  others,  shock  the  obvious 
principles  of  common  sense,  and  encroach  upon  that 
inviolable  privilege  of  concealing  our  thoughts,  so  es- 
sential to  the  human  mind  ?*  But,  above  all  other 
considerations,  how  plain  and  explicit  ought  to  be  the 
terms  of  a  commission  which  seems  to  trench  upon 
the  attributes  of  the  Deity  himself,  by  communicating 
any  one  of  them  to  sinful  man !  It  was  by  his  incom- 
municable power  to  forgive  sins,  that  Christ  first 
evinced  his  divinity  to  the  world ;  and  it  was  from  the 
exercise  of  this  power  that  the  ancient  fathers  drew 
their  great  argument  for   this    fundamental    truth,  t 

*  Feeling,  in  some  subjects,  is  paramount  to  reason.  To  feel  that  we  are 
free,  says  Bishop  Horsley,  is  the  best  argument  to  prove  that  we  are  so. 

t  See  Irenaeus,  lib.  v.  c.  17 — Tertul.  contra  Marcion,  lib.  iv.  c.  10.  Athan. 
©rat-iv.  contra  Arian.     Basil  contra  Eunomium.     Hilary  in  St.  Matt.  &c.  fcc 


£7 

Now,  if  priests  had  pretended,  in  their  days,  to  any 
thing  more  than  a  declaratory  or  ministerial  power, 
this  argument  would  not  have  been  conclusive,  for  it 
might  have  been  replied  that  Christ's  power  was  also 
derived  from  God  ;  that  he  acted  in  the  capacity  of 
his  minister,  and  in  his  name.  And  if  it  be  said  that, 
in  the  exercise  of  this  power,  Christ  performed  many 
stupendous  miracles,  was  not  this  the  case  also  with 
many  of  the  Romish  saints,  provided  any  credit  be 
given  to  the  history  of  their  lives. 

The  divine  prerogative  of  forgiving  sin,  as  belong- 
ing to,  and  exercised  by  our  Saviour,  is  clearly  ex- 
plained, and  devoutly  enforced  by  the  Rev.  Gentle- 
man, (p.  108,  109.,)  and  must  meet  the  assent  of  every 
Christian  reader ;  nor  will  it  be  denied,  that  this 
power  was  imparted  by  Christ  to  his  apostles  and 
their  successors  in  the  ministry,  in  a  manner  be3t 
suited  to  the  merciful  plan  of  reconciling  sinners  to 
their  offended  Maker.  But,  like  other  attributes 
of  the  Deity,  this  also  could  be  communicated  to 
mortals,  only  in  a  limited  and  restricted  sense.  Christ 
says,  indeed,  to  his  apostles,  "As  my  father  hath  sent 
me,  even  so  send  i  you."  {John.  xx.  21.)  After 
which  words,  the  Rev.  Gentleman  (p.  109.)  adds, 
with  a  hardihood  of  expression,  at  least  unbecoming  i 
"He  hath  sent  me  to  save  the  world,  {John  iii.  17.,)  you 
also  shall  become  in  some  sort  its  saviours."  The  text 
is  this:  "God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the  world  to  con- 
demn the  world,  but  that  the  world  through  him  might 
be  saved."  If  ministers  also  be  sent  for  this  purpose, 
truly  the  exception,  in  some  sort,  must  qualify  their 
mission,  and  it  may  equally  apply  to  their  delegated 
power  of  remitting  or  retaining  sins.     They   have 

8 


58 

authority  to  do  both ;  but  in  a  qualified,  limited,  and 
improper  sense,  either  by  separating  from  church 
communion,  public  and  impenitent  offenders,  and  in 
restoring  to  it,  such  as  are  penitent,  or  by  declaring 
and  pronouncing,  in  general  terms,  that  absolution 
and  remission  of  sins  is  promised  and  granted  by  Al- 
mighty God,  to  all  those,  who,  with  hearty  repentance 
and  true  faith,  turn  unto  him.  "  But,"  says  the  Rev. 
Gentleman,  "  that  it  should  not  be  understood  that 
they  had  to  announce,  or  proclaim  it  only,  or  to  pro- 
mise it  on  his  part,  he  associates  them  with  him  in 
this  divine  power.  He  wishes  that  they  themselves 
should  remit  sin  ;  that  they  should  remit  it  in  his  name 
and  on  his  part ;  he  imparts  his  authority  to  them  to 
save  sinners.  He  engages  himself  to  ratify  in  Hea- 
ven the  sentence  they  shall  have  pronounced  on 
earth."     (Jpp.  p.  109.) 

The  lofty  strain  of  prerogative  which  runs  through 
this  and  other  passages  of  the  Appendix,  must  excite 
painful,  if  not  indignant  feelings,  in  all  who  have  not 
pinned  their  faith  upon  the  council  of  Trent.  They 
will  naturally  ask  the  question,  Whether  the  guilt  of 
sin,  can,  with  any  propriety,  be  said  to  be  forgiven  by 
any  but  God  alone  ?  Can  any  but  the  Divine  Law- 
giver pardon  the  guilt  attached  to  the  violation  of  his 
laws  ?  Can  any  thing  but  his  grace  blot  out  the  dead- 
ly stain,  and  restore  the  vitiated  soul  to  his  favour  ? 
Can  any  thing  short  of  this,  raise  up  one  who  is  dead 
in  trespasses  and  sins,  and  clothe  the  soul  in  the  robes 
of  righteousness  ?  Is,  indeed,  the  priest  associated 
with  God  in  the  power  of  forgiving  sin;  or  is  not  this 
God's  special  and  incommunicable  property  ?  A  col- 
lect of  the  Roman  church  begins  with  these  words  ; 


59 

"  Deus,  cui  proprium  est  misereri  semper  et  parcere,v" 
&c.  M  O  God,  whose  property  it  is  to  have  mercy 
always,  and  to  spare,"  &c. ;  in  other  words,  "  to  whom 
alone  it  belongs  to  pity  and  pardon  repenting  sinners." 
The  prayer  which  is  offered  up  by  the  priest,  before 
he  pronounces  the  absolution,  proves  that  the  latter 
can  only  be  ministerial  and  declaratory.  After  receiv- 
ing the  confession  of  the  penitent,  accompanied,  as  he 
conceives,  with  satisfactory  marks  of  inward  repent- 
ance, the  priest  is  directed  to  pray  for  him  in  the  fol- 
lowing words :  "  Misereatur  tui"  Sic.  "  Almighty 
God  have  mercy  upon  thee,  and,  thy  sins  being  for- 
given, lead  thee  to  eternal  life.  Amen."  "  Indulgen* 
tiam"  &c.  "  The  Almighty  and  Merciful  Lord  grant 
thee  pardon,  absolution,  and  remission  of  thy  sins. 
Amen."  "  Dominus  noster"  &c.  "  May  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  absolve  thee  :  and  I,  by  his  authority, 
absolve  thee  from  every  bond  of  excommunication, 
suspension,  and  interdict,  as  far  as  I  am  able,  and  thou 
requirest."  "  Deinde^  *  And  then  (or  after  this, 
after  God  has  forgiven  thee,  pardoned  and  absolved 
thee  from  thy  sins)  I  absolve  thee  from  thy  sins,  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Amen."  Now,  who  does  not  perceivev  in 
these  short  prayers,  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  discipline 
of  the  church,  mitigated,  indeed,  but  still  retained  in 
some  measure  ?  After  removing,  by  a  delegated  au- 
thority, the  penalty  of  excommunication  from  the  peni- 
tent, if  a  layman,  and  of  suspension,  if  in  orders,  and 
thus  restoring  him  to  the  fellowship  of  the  faithful, 
after  praying  that  "  God  would  grant  him  pardon,  ab- 
solution, and  remission  of  his  sins,"  with  full  assurance 
that  this  exercise  of  outward  discipline  is  ratified,  and 


60 

this  prayer  is  heard  in  Heaven,  for  true  and  gospel 
penitents,:  he  then,  deinde,  "  absolves  him  from  his  sins, 
in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity  ;  that  is,  in  this  glori- 
ous name,  he  pronounces  and  declares  that  very  abso- 
lution, for  which  he  had  previously  prayed,  and  which 
was  certainly  granted  before  it  was  proclaimed,  if 
granted  at  all.  Thus  the  very  form  of  absolution, 
prescribed  in  the  Roman  ritual,  materially  lowers  the 
high  and  decisive  tone  of  that  ministerial  act,  and 
brings  it  nearly  to  a  level  with  the  doctrine  of  Calvin, 
above  mentioned,  and  of  other  Protestant  divines. 

But  if  this  be  the  case,  it  will  probably  be  said, 
why  have  recourse  to  any  minister  at  all  ?  Why  make 
any  public  or  private  confession  of  sins,  in  order  to 
be  assured  of  their  forgiveness,  or  what  benefit  can 
arise  from  any  kind  of  absolution  in  the  sense  admit- 
ted by  Protestants  ?  The  answer  is,  because  the 
minister  of  God  is  his  delegated  functionary  to  de- 
clare the  terms  of  reconciliation  and  salvation  held 
forth  in  the  gospel ;  "  for  he  is  the  messenger  of  the 
Lord  of  Hosts,"  and  "  they  should  seek  the  law  at 
bis  mouth."  (Malac.  ii.  7.)  The  ministers  remit  sin, 
as  the  apostles  did,  "  by  the  word  of  God,  by  the  tes- 
timonies of  the  scripture,  and  by  exhortations  to  vir- 
tue." (St.  Jerom.  in  ha.  xiv.  17.)  They  are  supposed 
to  be  men  of  integrity,  piety,  and  knowledge  ;  to  have 
studied  the  human  heart ;  to  be  best  acquainted  with 
the  motives  that  lead  to  piety,  ancj  with  the  preserva- 
tives against  vice.  They  are,  moreover,  delegated 
?n  a  special  manner  to  assure  a  sinner  for  his  comfort, 
fchat,  according  to  their  best  judgment,  he  has  com- 
plied with  the  conditions  required  by  Almighty  God^ 


61 

and  is  entitled  to  forgiveness  and  pardon  on  the  gos- 
pel terms. 

And  what  is  it,  after  all,  that  the  priests  of  the  Ro- 
man church,  do  more  than  this,  when  their  own  doc- 
trines are  fairly  stated  ?  They,  indeed,  pronounce 
penitents  absolved  by  positive  assurance,  and  as  they 
say,  by  a  judicial  exercise  of  a  power  inherent  in 
them  :  but  even  this  is  only  upon  the  presumption  of 
a  sincere  repentance,  without  which  they  allow  that 
it  is  not  ratified  in  Heaven.  In  the  primitive  church, 
absolution  was  never  granted  until  a  severe  penance 
had  actually  been  performed ;  but  now  it  is  given  on 
a  mere  promise  of  submitting  to  one  that  is  very 
slight ;  nay,  is  considered  as  valid,  although  this  pe- 
nance should  not  be  performed  at  all ;  for  were  this 
not  the  case,  the  absolution  would  be  only  condition- 
al. It  follows,  therefore,  that  the  absolution  in  the 
Roman  ritual,  is  in  reality,  like  that  of  the  Protestant 
churches,  strictly  declaratory,  with  this  only  differ- 
ence, that  Protestants  acknowledge  it,  and  Roman 
Catholics  will  not,  although,  according  to  their  own 
principles,  it  cannot  possibly  be  any  thing  more. 

With  respect,  however,  to  this  private  absolution, 
in  whatever  light  it  be  considered,  it  is  a  ministerial 
act  of  modern  date,  never  mentioned  nor  hinted  at  in 
the  scriptures,  nor  known  to  the  primitive  fathers. 
Whoever  will  read  St.  Augustin's  letter  to  Macedo- 
nius,  will  be  convinced,  that  in  his  time,  public  pe- 
nance was  never  granted  but  once,  and  private  abso- 
lution never  at  all.  "  La  reponse  de  St.  Augustin," 
(says  P.  Richard,  vol.  1.  p.  192.,)  "  prouve  invincible- 
ment,  qu'ils  ne  connoissoient  pas  deux  sortes  de  peni- 
tence, et  d'absolution,  Tune  publique,  qu'on  ne  rece- 


62 

voit  qu'une  fois  ;  et  I'autre  secrete,  a  Iaquelle  on  etoit 
admis  autant  de  fois  que  l'on  tomboit  dans  le  peche." 
The  contrary  opinion,  he  adds,  is  indefensible,  (m- 
soutenable.)  Now,  the  council  of  Trent  allows,  that 
public  confession  was  not  commanded  ;  and  it  was, 
moreover,  never  enjoined,  but  for  public  offences  or 
the  most  flagitious  nature.  Many  others,  though  of 
a  mortal  or  deadly  nature,  such  as  pride,  detraction, 
anger,  breach  of  trust,  private  enmity,  treachery, 
lying,  intemperance,  &c,  together  with  sinful  thoughts 
and  desires,  did  not  exclude  men  from  the  Lord's  ta- 
ble, if  blotted  out  by  tears,  prayers,  and  contrition. 
"  Three  ways,"  says  St.  Augustin,  (de  Sym.  ad  Catec. 
lib.  i.  c.  7.,)  "  are  sins  remitted  in  the  church,  by  bap- 
tism, by  prayer,  and  by  submitting  to  the  humiliation 
ef  the  greater  penance."  No  mention  is  here  made, 
either  directly  or  indirectly,  of  private  confession  and 
judicial  absolution.  If,  then,  it  be  an  incontrovertible 
fact,  that  for  more  than  four  hundred  years  after 
Christ,  there  is  no  instance  of  absolution  but  such  as 
was  public,  and  that  this  was  only  granted  for  certain 
sins ;  it  evidently  follows,  that  there  were  many  mor- 
tal sins,  of  which  no  confession  was  required,  and 
from  which  no  judicial  absolution  was  granted.  This 
argument  admits  of  no  answer,  nor  has  any,  I  be- 
lieve, been  ever  attempted. 

But  the  holy  cecumenic  council  of  Trent,  as  the  Rev. 
Gentleman  styles  it,  (p.  7.,)  has  definitively  and  irre- 
vocably fixed  the  meaning,  decreed  the  necessity,  and 
enjoined  the  obligation  of  auricular  sacramental  confes- 
sion, as  it  is  now  adopted  and  practised  in  the  church 
of  Rome,  and  pronounced  dreadful  anathemas  against 
all  who  presume  to  question  its  decisions.     These  it 


m 

grounds  upon  the  texts  which  have  already  been  con- 
sidered, so  that  the  reader  may  judge  of  their  claim, 
to  his  assent. 

To  assist  his  determination  on  so  weighty  a  point, 
and  to  abate,  if  possible,  the  confidence  on  this  sub- 
ject, which  is  generally  derived  from  the  decrees  of 
this  council,  it  may  be  deemed  advisable  to  say  some- 
thing respecting  it  in  this  part  of  our  reply. 

With  whatever  veneration  and  submission  Roman 
Catholics  believe  themselves  bound  to  receive  the  de- 
crees of  this  council,  they  will  cease  to  command  re- 
spect, from  those  who  know  the  unbecoming  manner, 
the  precipitation,  in  which  the  whole  business  was 
conducted,  by  the  haughty  legate  Crescentio.  The 
fact  is,  neither  caution,  nor  common  consent,  nor  univer- 
sal tradition,  was  consulted  in  framing  either  its  de- 
crees or  its  canons,  as  appears  not  only  from  the  his- 
tory of  Fra.  Paolo,  but  from  authentic  letters  of  se- 
veral bishops,  and  others,  who  were  present  at  it. 
From  these  it  is  manifest,  that  it  was  a  most  confu- 
sed and  irregular  assembly — that  the  presiding  legates 
were  men  of  consummate  artifice  and  dissimulation, 
striving  perpetually  to  sow  dissention  among  the 
members ; — that  most  of  the  bishops  who  composed 
the  council,  were  men  of  very  moderate  attainments, 
little  conversant  either  in  theology  or  ecclesiastical 
antiquities; — that  several  of  them  were  self-interested, 
worldly  men,  ever  ready  to  stoop  to  the  most  servile 
flattery,  with  a  view  of  being  translated  to  more  opu- 
lent sees;* — that  all  the  prelates  were  much  dissatis- 
fied at  the  overbearing  insolence  of  the  legate,  and 

*  The  letters  of  several  of  these  bishops  might  readily  be  quoted,  all  full 
of  sentiments  of  this  nature- 


64 

tired  out  by  their  long  residence  at  Trent,  as  ruinous 
to  themselves  and  their  people ; — that  when  a  bishop 
advanced  any  thing  displeasing  to  the  legates,  they 
first  interrupted  him  with  a  degree  of  contemptuous 
petulance,  which  gave  universal  offence,*  and  after- 
wards omitted  neither  menaces  nor  entreaties  to  bring 
him  over  to  their  opinion, — that  there  were  but  se- 
venty bishops  in  the  whole  council,  who  were  capa- 
ble of  discussing  any  point  of  theology, — that  the  de- 
crees, particularly  those  on  penance  and  transubstan- 
tiation,  were  drawn  up  in  a  hurry,  by  a  few  creatures 
of  the  legate,  in  such  terms  as  he  thought  fit,  and 
were  then  presented  for  signing,  without  allowing  any 
time  for  further  examination^ — that  the  doctors  of 
Louvain,  and  the  divines  of  the  Elector  of  Cologne, 
were  obliged,  secretly,  to  correct  considerable  mis- 
takes which  were  pointed  out  in  several  of  the  de- 
crees, after  these  good  fathers  had  solemnly  approv- 
ed of  them  in  a  public  session  ; — that  although  some 
able  divines  were  often  allowed  to  speak,  yet  they 
were  little  heeded  ;  and  never  permitted  to  attend, 
while  the  doctrinal  canons  were  drawn  up  ; — that  the 
council   was  in  effect  held  at  Rome,  between  which 

*  This  was  particularly  the  case  with  the  bishop  of  Verdun,  a  man  vene- 
rable for  his  piety  and  integrity,  whom  Crescentio,  in  the  public  assembly, 
called  an  imprudent,  silly,  young  fellow.  Lett.  Varg.  26  November.  See 
also  the  memoirs  of  the  bishop  of  Orense. 

t  The  council  was  not  even  allowed  to  have  its  own  secretary  and  nota- 
ries, and  the  legates  employed  such  only  as  were  totally  devoted  to  them, 
hence  the  minutes  of  this  council,  have  never  even  been  suffered  to  appear  ; 
and  the  very  first  edition  of  the  council,  printed  at  Rome  by  Manucius,  was 
corrupted.  See  Richer,  1.  iv.  p.  2.  His.  Con.  Gen.  In  the  like  manner,  the 
Roman  edition  of  the  councils,  has  wholly  omitted  the  council  of  Basil : 
"  which  (says  the  same  learned  man)  is  an  action  worthy  of  the  absolute 
monarchy  of  the  church  of  Rome,  determined  to  obtain  in  fact,  what  it  can- 
not defend  in  right."  Quod  jure  non  potest,  id  vi&  facti  consequi.  Lib.  3,  c.  7. 


65 

place  and  Trent  messengers  were  constantly  passing^ 
and  that  they  only  executed  at  Trent  the  determina- 
tions of  the  pope ; — that  whenever  any  thing  was 
likely  to  be  carried  against  them,  they  secured  a  plu- 
rality of  suffrages,  by  sending  for  a  fresh  supply  of 
voters; — that  whatever  was  proposed,  the  legates 
always  began  by  declaring  their  own  sentiments  on 
the  subject; — that  the  ambassadors  of  the  emperor 
Charles  V.  thought  so  meanly  of  the  capacities  of 
those,  who  were  alone  admitted  to  vote,  as  to  urge  the 
necessity  of  consulting  the  universities  before  any  ques- 
tion was  determined  ; — that  many  of  the  bishops  were 
pensioned  by  the  pope,  on  the  express  condition  of 
opposing  that  reformation  of  his  court,  so  loudly  call- 
ed for  by  the  whole  Christian  world,  with  the  excep- 
tion only  of  the  Roman  clergy : — In  a  word,  never 
did  Dioscorus,  in  the  tumultuous  meeting  at  Ephesus, 
behave  with  greater  insolence  than  did  Crescentio  in 
the  council  of  Trent :  nor  was  that  assembly,  in  fact, 
less  free,  though  this  was  conducted  with  greater  art 
and  caution. 

Fra.  Paolo  Sarpi,  the  theologian  and  counsellor  of 
the  Venetian  States,  a  man  universally  esteemed  by 
all  his  contemporaries,  and  eminently  qualified  for  the 
undertaking,  has  left  us  the  history  of  the  proceed- 
ings of  this  council,  to  which  Palavicini's  publication 
has  only  served  to  add  greater  authority  and  credit. 
While  the  first  has  shown  how  much  may  be  said 
against  it,  the  latter  has  proved  how  little  can  be  said 
in  its  favour.  The  history  of  the  council  of  Trent  by 
Fra.  Paolo  is  pronounced  by  Dr.  Johnson  to  be  "  a 
work  unequalled  for  the  judicious  disposition  of  the 
matter,  and  artful  texture  of  the  narration;  commend- 

0 


66 

ed  by  Dr.  Burnet  as  the  completest  model  of  his- 
torical writing ;  and  celebrated  by  Mr.  Wotton  as 
equivalent  to  any  production  of  antiquity;  in  which 
the  reader  finds  '  liberty  without  licentiousness,  piety 
without  hypocrisy,  freedom  of  speech  without  neglect 
of  decency,  severity  without  rigour,  and  extensive 
learning  without  ostentation.'  "  {John.  Life  of  Fr. 
Paolo.)  Such  is  the  history  of  Fra.  Paolo  Sarpi, 
which  furnishes  us  with  the  disgusting  sketch  of  the 
council  of  Trent,  just  presented  to  the  reader.  If  it 
be  said,  that  he  was  a  secret  friend  to  the  reforma- 
tion, this  circumstance  will  probably  detract  from  the 
credit  of  his  narrative,  in  the  opinion  of  Roman  Catho- 
lics; but  what  will  they  object  to  the  famous  Vargas, 
who  assisted  at  the  council,  and  lived  and  died  in  the 
communion  of  their  church  ?  His  letters,  still  extant, 
confirm  the  principal  facts  related  by  Fra.  Paolo,  and 
the  following  few  extracts  from  them  may,  perhaps, 
induce  some  to  pay  less  deference  to  this  pretended 
general  council  of  the  Christian  church,  than  they 
have  heretofore  conceived  to  be  its  due.  An  appeal 
is  here  made  to  facts  related  by  Roman  Catholic 
writers,  with  which,  however,  they  never  intended 
Protestants  should  be  acquainted:  but  Providence 
has  otherwise  ordained  it,  by  preserving  their  origi- 
nal letters,  to  bear  testimony  to  the  truth. 

"  The  council  can  do  nothing  of  itself,"  says  Vargas, 
in  a  letter  to  the  bishop  of  Arras,  dated  November 
12;  "it  is  deprived  of  its  authority.  The  legate  is 
absolute  master  of  it,  and  conducts  every  thing  as  he 
pleases.  After  this,  nothing  can  astonish  us,"  &c. 
In  another  letter,  addressed  to  the  same  prelate,  on 
the  29th.  we  find  the  following  very  striking  express 


67  r 

a-ions  and  remarks  :  "  He,"  (the  legate)  "  is  lost  to  all 
shame.  He  seeks  to  intimidate  us  by  his  haughty  and 
imperious  language.  He  treats  the  bishops  as  so 
many  slaves ;  he  threatens  and  swears  that  he  will 
leave  us.  The  issue  of  the  council  will  be  such  as  I 
always  foretold,  unless  God  prevent  it  by  a  miracle- 
He  has  got  through  that  session  (the  fourteenth)  with 
a  shameful  and  infamous  reform.  It  will  render  us 
the  fable  and  laughing-stock  of  the  universe — His 
conduct  is  a  dishonour  to  God — the  bishops  are  of- 
fended at  it.  They  are  only  detained  here  by  repeat- 
ed entreaties  and  solicitations — They  are  scandalized 
—All  the  sinews  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  are  re- 
laxed— The  riches  consecrated  to  God's  service  are 
become  the  objects  of  a  scandalous  traffic. — By  these 
measures  (general  councils)  the  court  of  Rome  will 
hold  the  universal  church  in  subjection. — The  law- 
suits occasioned  by  these  privileges  (of  wearing  the 
tonsure)  are  a  mine  of  gold  to  the  court  of  Rome — 
It  is  lamentable  to  see  in  what  manner  they  examine 
and  define  the  doctrinal  points — The  legate  manages 
all  as  he  pleases,  without  either  counting  or  weighing 
the  suffrages  of  the  divines  and  bishops. — rHis  majesty 
has  sent  many  able  divines  hither ;  and  the  dean  and 
other  doctors  of  Louvaine  are  men  of  erudition  and 
piety;  but  they  are  not  called  in  to  give  their  opin- 
ions, when  the  doctrinal  canons  are  drawing  up. — 
Every  body  complains  of  this — many  have  little  re- 
spect for  such  decrees. —  We  have  reason  to  think  that 
the  pope's  ministers  intend  to  erect  into  articles  of  faith 
many  doubtful  and  problematical  points. — If  they  con- 
tinue to  act  with  the  same  precipitation,  they  will 
lose  even  the  small  corner  of  the  world,  which  still  re- 


68 

mains  subject  to  their  obedience. — The  prediction  of 
St.  Paul  {cap.  ii.  Epis.  ii.  ad  Thess.  concerning  the 
falling  away  of  the  man  of  sin,  &c.)  draws  near  to  its 
accomplishment  in  the  church  of  Rome — Many  wish 
that  the  council  had  never  been  assembled  ;  and  would 
to  heaven  it  had  never  been  thought  of,"  &c. 

Again,  he  tells  the  bishop  of  Arras  :  "  Many  bi- 
shops deliver  their  suffrages  on  subjects  which  they 
do  not  understand,  and  are  not  even  capable  of  com- 
prehending.— The  doctors  of  Louvain,  and  the  divines 
of  the  elector  of  Cologne,  and  some  others,  will  pro- 
test against  the  council,  as  well  as  the  Lutherans. — 
We  are  all  so  many  dumb  dogs — -The  evils  of  the 
church  will  become  incurable,  and  abuses  will  be 
confirmed. — God  grant  that  that  blind  court  may  be 
converted. — This  only  serves  (les  juges  conservateurs) 
to  embroil  together  the  two  powers,  ecclesiastical 
and  civil,  and  to  occasion  the  spending  of  much  money  ; 
and  therefore  this  abuse  is  confirmed,  instead  of 
being  abolished,"  &c.  See  his  Letters  of  November  26, 
^December  29,  and  20th  and  25th  January,  1552. 

Such  is  the  account  of  the  council  given  by  Var- 
gas, a  man  eminent  in  the  law,  who  was  employed  at 
Trent  by  the  emperor  Charles  V.  From  his  writings 
he  appears  to  have  been  a  person  of  great  integrity 
and  erudition,  an  able  divine  and  canonist,*  though, 
from  early  prejudices,  warmly  opposed  to  the  Refor- 
mation. He  was  a  member  of  the  sovereign  council 
of  Castile;  was  highly  esteemed  by  Pope  Pius  IV.; 
after  the  conclusion  of  the  council  of  Trent  he  filled 
the  most  important  offices  at  Venice,  at  Rome,  and  in 

*  See  his  panegyric  by  Don  Nicholas  Antonio,  from  the  Bibl.  Author. 
Hispan. 


69 

Spain,  and  was  finally  made  counsellor  of  state. 
Whatever  he  relates  is  from  his  personal  knowledge 
and  observations,  and  is  confirmed  by  the  testimony 
still  extant  of  several  of  the  Spanish  bishops,  and  of 
Malvenda,  a  doctor  of  Paris.  Moreover,  his  memoirs 
and  letters  are  addressed  to  the  famous  Anthony 
Perennot,  bishop  of  Arras,  minister  of  Charles  V.,  and 
afterwards  archbishop  of  Mecklin,  and  of  Besan^on, 
so  well  known  in  the  annals  of  those  times,  by  the 
name  of  cardinal  Granville.  This  prelate  was  an  in- 
veterate and  cruel  enemy  to  the  Protestants  :  "  Sa 
conduite  imperieuse  et  tyrannique,"  say  the  authors  of 
the  Nouveau  Dictionaire  Historique,  printed  at  Caen, 
"  et  ses  cruautes  contre  les  Protestans,  qu'il  faisoit 
bruler  impitoy ablement,  souleverent  les  peuples  contre 
lui,  et  il  fut  obilge  de  s'enfuir  en  Espagne." — And 
yet,  nevertheless,  from  his  answers  to  Malvenda, 
Dom.  Francis  of  Toledo,  Vargas,  and  others,  he 
seems  to  be  fully  persuaded  of  the  truth  of  this  ho- 
nest writer's  information.* 

Such  being  the  authenticated  account  of  the  coun- 
cil of  Trent,  as  stated  by  cotemporary  writers,  who, 
notwithstanding,  by  a  strange  inconsistency,  submit- 
ted to  its  decrees,  the  Rev.  Gentleman  cannot  be  sur- 
prised, that  Protestants  should  object  to  its  being  ob- 
truded on  them  as  of  infallible  authority;  or  rather, 
that  with  respect  to  confession,  they  should  consider 
its  decisions  as  erroneous,  founded  neither  on  scrip- 
ture,   ancient   usage,  nor    tradition.     They  humbly 

*Lettres  el  Memoirs  de  Frangois  de  Vargas,  de  Pierre  de  Malvenda,  et  de 
quelques  Evecqucs  d'Espagne  traduits  de  l'Espagnol,  &c.  Many  similar  pas- 
sages to  those  above  cited,  with  several  other  curious  and  interesting  anecdotes 
relating  to  this  council,  may  be  seen  in  this  work. 


70 

conceive,  that  the  spirit  of  God  could  never  have 
presided  at  such  a  meeting,  in  which  the  spirit  of 
knowledge,  meekness,  honesty,  and  peace  had  so 
small  a  share.  But  I  know  it  will  be  said,  that  what- 
ever may  have  been  the  characters  of  the  fathers  of 
this  council,  its  decrees  being  sanctioned  and  confirm- 
ed by  the  pope,  and  received  as  articles  of  faith  by 
the  whole  Catholic  church,  they  must  be  considered 
as  stamped  with  the  seal  of  infallibility,  and  of  course 
must  challenge  the  belief  and  assent  of  all  the  faith- 
ful. From  this  infallibility  of  the  church,  "  which,"  he 
tells  us,  (p.  82.,)  "  has  repeatedly  and  solemnly  decla- 
red this  truth  in  her  general  councils,  and  emphati- 
cally taught  the  same  in  every  age,"  the  Rev.  Gentle- 
man "  draws  his  fourth  and  last  argument  in  favour  of 
the  divine  institution  of  confession."  Had  he  drawn 
from  it  his  only  argument  he  would  have  saved  him- 
self much  laborious  investigation,  and  by  confining 
the  controversy  to  a  single  point,  have  obviated  some 
doubts,  which  too  circumstantial  a  discussion  may 
possibly  excite  in  the  minds  of  his  readers.  The  lofty 
plea  of  infallibility,  once  established,  renders  all  fur- 
ther reasoning  on  the  subject  superfluous ;  and  it  is 
to  be  regretted,  I  say,  that  the  Rev.  Gentleman  did 
not  confine  himself  to  it,  as,  in  that  case,  it  might 
have  admitted  of  a  more  minute  discussion,  than  can 
be  afforded  to  it  when  making  only  one  head  of  a 
short  reply.  The  reader  must  be  sensible,  that  this 
subject  opens  a  most  extensive  field  of  argument, 
which,  however,  will  be  passed  over  with  all  possible 
despatch. 


71 


part  nr. 


Neither  the  council  of  Lateran,  nor  of  Trent,  nor  any  other 
earthly  tribunal,  had,  or  has,  a  right  to  impose  such  a  grie- 
vous yoke  as  auricular  confession  upon  the  faithful,  from 
a  plea  to  infallibility,  this  plea  being  altogether  unsupported 
either  by  Reason  or  Revelation. 

Infallibility  being  the  great  fundamental  tenet  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  church,  by  which  all  others  are 
sanctioned  ;  and  in  virtue  of  which  she  claims  the  be- 
lief of  many  points  of  faith,  which,  her  own  divines 
confess,  would  not  otherwise  appear  evidently  re- 
vealed, nor  manifest  from  reason  ;  one  would  natu- 
rally imagine,  that  it  would  be  very  clearly  and  ex- 
plicitly set  down  in  the  scriptures,  and  that  Christ 
and  his  apostles  would  have  delivered  it  in  the  most 
unequivocal  terms.  I  will  produce  all  the  principal 
passages,  which  are  commonly  alleged  in  support  of 
this  infallibility,  make  a  few  remarks  on  them,  and 
then  leave  the  candid  reader  to  judge  for  himself. 

The  first  text  is,  "  The  gates  of  hell  shall  not  pre- 
vail against  the  church  ;"  (Matth.  xvi.  18.;)  therefore 
she  must  be  infallible.  Here  I  must  beg  leave  to  ob- 
serve, that  many  Roman  Catholic  divines,  who  have 
an  admirable  facility  in  discovering  whatever  they  wish 
for  in  the  Scriptures,  often  allege  this  same  text  to 
establish  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter.  But  they  might  as 
well  apply  it  to  transubstantiation,  efficacious  grace, 
or  any  other  doctrine.  There  is  a  great  advantage 
in  not  being;  over  delicate  in  the  choice  of  arguments, 
and  it  is  no  difficult  matter  to  impose  upon  those,  who 
value  them  more  for  their  number  than  their  weight. 
This  text,  like  many  others,  has  been  alleged,  and  ad- 


72 

mitted  by  thousands,  who,  from  a  point  of  conscience* 
or  prejudice,  never  considered  it.  For  my  own  part, 
I  sincerely  believe  that,  in  whatever  light  it  be  ad- 
mitted, it  cannot  go  to  prove  the  infallibility  of  the 
church.  The  obvious  promise  of  Christ  is  this  only 
— "  That  no  violence  or  persecution  of  men  or  devils 
shall  ever  succeed  in  destroying  the  Christian  reli- 
gion, to  which  he  has  been  pleased  to  annex  perpe- 
tuity" Now,  what  has  infallibility  to  do  with  all  this? 
— If  it  be  said  that  errors  would  destroy  the  church 
as  effectually  as  violence,  and  that,  therefore,  she 
must  be  infallible  in  her  decisions :  I  answer,  this  is 
very  true  under  two  exceptions,  each  of  which,  over- 
throws every  plea  to  infallibility.  The  first  is — that 
all  errors  do  not  destroy  the  church,  but  such  only  as 
are  fundamental.  The  second — that  without  infalli- 
bility, she  may  always  secure  herself  from  these  capi- 
tal errors,  by  taking  for  her  guide  the  light  of  clear 
Revelation  and  the  evidence  of  Reason.  With  these 
two  luminous  principles  in  view,  the  church  cannot 
fall  into  many  material  errors — by  abandoning  either 
she  is  reduced  to  a  level  with  every  other  fallible  so- 
ciety. The  church,  therefore,  that  is  to  say,  the 
whole  body  of  the  faithful,  cannot  err  in  matters  es- 
sentially connected  with  the  es-sence  of  Christianity : 
but  the  text  does  not  prove,  in  the  most  distant  man- 
ner, that  the  church,  besides  the  fundamental  articles 
of  religion,  should  never  teach  any  others,  or  enforce 
their  belief,  although  they  be  not  authorized  either 
by  Reason  or  Revelation.  And  accordingly  we  find, 
that  the  great  body  of  orthodox  Christians,  through 
every  age,  have  constantly  believed  and  professed  the 
fundamental  articles  of  the  Christian  religion  contain- 


73 

ed  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  in  the  decisions  of  the 
four  first  councils.  Against  these  great  fundamental 
tenets  the  gates  of  hell  will  never  prevail.  The  enemy 
may  sow  tarea  and  stubble  among  this  heavenly 
grain ;  he  may  build  structures  of  straw  upon  this 
unshaken  foundation.  Against  his  wiles  and  en- 
croachments, the  rulers  of  God's  Church  should  ever 
be  upon  their  guard.  It  is  a  main  point  of  their  duty 
to  clear  away  the  rubbish,  which  the  artifice  of  Satan, 
and  the  various  passions  of  men,  have  been  for 
ages  heaping  upon  these  foundations  of  truth  :  but 
they  may  rest  secure  that  these  foundations  them- 
selves, will  never  give  way  to  any  power  in  hell  or  on 
earth.  They  may  be  obscured  by  the  mists  of  supersti- 
tion and  immorality,  but  will  ever  retain  sufficient 
light  to  conduct  every  upright  and  pious  believer,  to 
all  points  of  his  duty,  essentially  connected  with  his 
eternal  salvation.* 

*  The  following  illustration  of  this  text  by  the  late  learned  Mr.  Grenville 
Sharp,  and  Dr.  Middleton  on  the  Greek  Article,  in  addition  to  what  has  al- 
ready been  said,  will  evince  its  meaning  beyond  a  doubt,  and  put  at  rest  every 
controversy  arising  out  of  it. 

That  the  Romish  hierarchy  has  founded  its  pretensions  to  dominion  chiefly 
on  the  text  mentioned  in  the  title,  is  well  known  ;  and  not  less  so,  in  this  coun- 
try, that  those  pretensions,  in  all  their  forms,  have  been  solidly  refuted  by  Pro- 
testant writers  of  various  kinds.  Mr.  Sharp,  however,  calls  the  attention  of 
his  readers  to  a  point  which  has  certamly  been  too  much  overlooked,  namely, 
that  Utrp or,  Peter,  does  not  mean  a  rock,  as  it  has  been  incautiously  translated, 
but  a  stone.*  Christ  is  the  rock  (Tlilpa.)  Peter  (Jltlpoc)  is  only  a  little  piece 
if  a  rock,  or  a  stone,  that  has  been  dug  out  of  the  rock.  Thus  is  the  dignity  of 
Christ  preserved,  and  Peter  properly  kept  at  a  due  distance  from  him.  The 
passage,  therefore,  truly  means,  "  Thou  art  Peter,  (or  Cephas,  both  meaning  a 
stone,)  a  fragment  from  that  sacred  rock  on  which  I  will  build  my  Church." 
The  distinction  is  clearly  made  in  the  original  text,  M  Thou  art  Pctros,  and  upon 
this  Petra,  (namely,  this  rock,  which  thou  hast  confessed,)  will  I  build  my 
church." 

*  YlsTfi.  is  a  rock,  TltTpos  astoae. 
10 


74 

2.  "  Jesus  Christ  promised  his  apostles,  that  he 
would  be  with  them  to  the  end  of  the  world."  (Matt. 
xxviii.  20.)  And  who  denies  it  ?  He  is  with  his 
church  by  his  protection,  by  his  grace,  by  the  lights 
he  communicates  to  her,  by  the  gifts  which  he  con- 
fers, by  the  strength  which  he  exerts  in  supporting 
her  against  violence  and  temptations.  But  cannot 
he  be  with  her  without  rendering  her  infallible  ?  He 
is  with  every  just  man;  yet  who  would  thence  infer 
his  security  from  every  error,  unless  from  such  as 
might  prove  fatal  to  his  integrity  ? — Besides,  why 
should  the  presence  of  Christ,  render  the  church  in- 
fallible rather  than  impeccable  ?  Is  not  vice  as  great 
an  enemy  to  religion  as  error  ?  Would  not  the 
church  be  equally  undone  by  either  of  these  evils  be- 
coming universal  ?  Why  then  was  it  not  full  as  neces- 
sary, to  secure  her  against  the  one  as  the  other  ?  But 
dreadful  experience  evinces  that  she  has  been  insu- 
red against  neither. 

Perhaps  it  will  be  said  that  individuals  alone  are 
guilty,  but  that  the  church,  by  the  mouths  of  her  mi- 
nisters, detests  the  scandals  she  is  compelled  to  tole- 
rate :  but  in  this  respect,  the  same  thing  may  be  said 
of  error,  with  equal  truth  and  propriety.  In  this  case 
also,  individuals  only  are  guilty ;  and  one  portion  of 
the  church,  oftentimes  anathematizes  the  other — Be- 
sides, as  I  remarked  above,  every  kind  of  error  is  not 
destructive  of  religion,   and   the   church   may  err  in 

Mr.  Sharp  produces  the  biblical  expressions  in  which  our  Saviour  is  men- 
tioned as  a  rock  or  a  chief  stonk,  and  comments  upon  them  with  sagacity 
and  judgment.  He  remarks,  also,  more  clearly  than  we  can  do  in  this  con- 
tracted space,  the  connexion  between  the  words  of  Peter's  confession  and  our 
Saviour's  immediate  reply  to  it ;  and  in  what  manner  it  actually  excludes  the 
sense,  which  has  been  forced  upon  it  by  the  church  of  Rome. 


75 

some  points,  without  Jesus  Christ  ceasing  to  be  with 
her  ;  for  nothing  that  does  not  attack  the  essence  of 
Christianity,  can  ever  abolish  it.  While,  therefore, 
the  essentials  of  religion  are  maintained,  errors  in 
collateral  doctrines  will  never  prove  fatal.  It  is  ab- 
surd, moreover,  to  imagine,  that  the  pretended  infalli- 
bility of  the  church  can  secure  her  against  error. 
Christ,  in  forming  his  church,  did  not  alter  the  nature 
of  man  or  of  human  societies.  What  they  were  be- 
fore the  establishment  of  Christianity,  such  they  still 
are,  with  this  only  exception,  that  now  they  possess 
the  benefit  of  Revelation,  to  serve  as  a  rule  for  be- 
lief and  conduct.  In  this  Revelation,  and  no  where 
else,  is  infallibility  to  be  found.  If,  in  some  respects, 
the  church  may  be  styled  infallible,  she  is  only  so  in 
being  the  depository  of  this  code  of  Revelation, 
which  contains  all  truth  without  any  mixture  of  false- 
hood, and  in  which  every  tenet  of  religion,  necessary 
for  salvation,  may  be  easily  discovered  by  every  dili- 
gent and  candid  inquirer.  Thus  it  is  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  with  us  to  the  end  of  the  world,  without 
creating  any  necessity  for  an  infallible  church. 

3.  The  next  passage  alleged  by  Roman  Catholic 
divines,  is  from  the  fourth  chapter  of  St.  Paul  to  the 
Ephesians,  11.  14,  where  he  says,  "Jesus  Christ  has 
given  to  his  church,  some  to  be  apostles,  others  to 
be  prophets,  to  the  end  that  we  should  be  no  longer 
children  who  suffer  themselves  to  be  carried  about  by 
every  wind  of  doctrine,"  <fec. 

This  text  makes  as  little  for  infallibility  as  the  other 
two.    The  question  here,  is  not  concerning  any  judg- 
ment of  the  church,   but   the  sending  of  pastors  and 
ministers  to  instruct  the  people.     "For  how  can  they 
/ 


76 

hear  the  word  of  God,  unless  it  be  preached  to  them ; 
and  how  can  it  be  preached  but  by  those  who  are 
sent."  (Rom.  x.  14,  15.)  Apostles,  therefore,  and 
prophets  are  necessary  to  bring  back  the  people  from 
error,  to  put  them  in  the  way  of  truth,  and  secure  them 
from  illusion.  But  is  it  any  wise  necessary  that  these 
ministers  should  be  infallible  ?  This  is  what  the 
apostle  had  no  idea  of  in  the  text.  They  have  a 
code  of  doctrine  and  morality  to  follow,  which  is  in- 
fallible, but  they  themselves  have  no  pretence  to  this 
privilege.  In  the  same  manner,  the  church  possesses 
the  infallible  scriptures,  and  by  following  them  can 
never  err.  But  the  question  is,  whether  this  be  al- 
ways the  case — One  part  of  the  Christian  church 
pretends  that  it  is  so  ;  the  other  that  it  is  not :  I  fear 
it  will  soon  be  found,  that  those  who  maintain  the  im- 
possibility of  the  church's  receding  from  the  sense  of 
scripture,  will  meet  with  stubborn  facts  to  thwart 
their  pretensions.  For,  among  Roman  Catholic  di- 
vines themselves,  who  are  perpetually  accusing  each 
other  of  errors,  and  defending  their  respective  opi- 
nions by  the  decisions  of  the  church,  it  is  absolutely 
necessary  that  some  should  be  wrong.  Wherefore, 
notwithstanding  her  infallibility,  the  doctors  of  the 
Roman  church  are  divided  eternally  upon  objects  of 
faith.  Notwithstanding  her  decisions,  they  deny,  ex- 
plain, and  modify  them  as  they  please,  or  allege 
opposite  decrees  in  support  of  their  several  opinions. 
If,  therefore,  the  church's  infallibility,  be  deduced 
from  the  union  of  her  bishops  and  doctors,  she  has  a 
slender  plea,  indeed,  to  that  exalted  privilege.  For 
a  union,  that  is,  such  in  words  and  formulas  only,  (and 
it  is  no  other,)  cannot  be  deemed  a  proper  union, 


.  , 


which  consists  in  ascribing  the  same  identical  mean- 
ing to  the  words  which  both  parties  adopt. 

4.  With  as  much  propriety  are  many  other  passa- 
ges of  scripture  alleged.  St.  Paul  writes  to  the  Ga- 
latians,  and  tells  them,  that  "  if  any  man  should  an- 
nounce to  them  any  other  doctrine  than  what  he 
had  taught  them,  such  a  person  should  be  an  ana- 
thema." (Gal.  i.  9.)  The  question  here  was  con- 
cerning justification  by  faith,  or  by  the  works  of  the 
law ;  and  it  appears  at  first  sight,  that  to  preach  a 
doctrine  contrary  to  that  delivered  by  St.  Paul,  was 
to  re-establish  Judaism  upon  the  ruins  of  the  gospel. 
Such  was  the  prevarication  which  St.  Paul  condemn- 
ed, and  he  had  reason  for  doing  it.  Is  it  probable 
he  would  have  passed  so  severe  a  censure  upon  less 
important  articles  ?  or  did  he  imagine  that  no  doc- 
trine, contrary  to  his,  could  be  preached  to  the  Gala- 
tians  ?  If  he  did,  why  caution  them  against  an  evil 
that  was  never  to  happen  ?  The  fact  is,  the  apostle 
was  really  apprehensive  of  such  a  thing,  and  the  more 
so,  as  St.  Peter  himself,  by  patronizing  the  ceremo- 
nies of  the  law,  seemed  to  support  a  doctrine,  which 
St.  Paul  so  severely  reprobated — Moreover,  he  was 
far  from  pronouncing  an  anathema  upon  an  oppo- 
sition to  less  material  points,  as  appears  evidently  from 
his  frequent  exhortations  to  the  faithful,  to  bear  with 
each  other  in  the  difference  of  opinion  which  would 
arise  among  them.  He  knew  well  that,  as  men,  they 
could  not  be  all  of  a  mind,  and,  therefore,  recommended 
a  charitable  forbearance,  instead  of  a  vague  infallibi- 
lity. This  is  an  invention  of  a  later  date,  and  was 
craftily  adopted,  when  reason  was  deficient.  Infalli- 
bility was  engrafted  upon  the  necessity  of  a  system 


78 

which  enforced  opinions  repugnant  to  common  sense. 
But  this  very  necessity  is  an  argument  of  its  weak- 
ness, if  not  of  its  falsity. 

5.  "  Jesus  Christ,"  they  add,  "  commands  us  to  re- 
gard every  person,  who  will  not  hear  the  church,  as 
a  Heathen  or  a  Publican."  (Matt,  xviii.  17.)  There- 
fore, the  church  is  infallible.  St.  Paul  commands  us  to 
obey  the  powers  that  are  :  Therefore,  these  powers  are 
infallible.  One  of  these  conclusions  is  as  logical  as 
the  other;  but  the  truth  is,  the  passage  in  question 
bears  not  the  most  distant  relation  to  infallibility  of 
any  kind.  It  does  not  so  much  as  hint  at  any  doctrine, 
or  decision  in  matter  of  faith.  It  speaks  only  of  a 
reconciliation  between  two  persons,  one  of  whom,  re- 
fuses to  make  the  other  satisfaction,  notwithstanding, 
the  interposition  of  the  church  or  congregation  to 
which  he  belongs.  In  this  case,  he  is  to  be  cut  off 
from  the  communion  of  the  faithful,  as  a  turbulent 
person :  he  is  not  to  be  allowed  to  come  to  the  public 
worship  or  sacrament,  and  is  to  be  treated  as  those 
are,  who  do  not  belong  to  the  Christian  church.  Let 
us  then  respect  the  voice  of  the  church,  when  Jesus 
Christ  obliges  us  to  hear  her ;  but  let  us  not  draw 
general  conclusions  from  scriptural  passages,  which 
are  true  only  in  particular  cases ;  let  us  not  convert 
the  principles  of  the  gospel  into  sources  of  illusion  ; 
nor  build  infallibility  upon  texts  of  scripture,  which 
afford  not  the  least  ground  for  such  a  chimera.  Let 
us  not  open  a  door  to  error,  by  being  over-solicitous 
to  exclude  it. 

6.  It  is  said,  moreover,  that,  in  proportion  as  here- 
sies have  arisen,  the  church  has  always  adopted  the 
language  of  St.  Paul,   to   convey  her  threats ;   and 


79 

that  the  fathers  deliver  it  as  a  rule  of  faith  to  believe 
that  which  has  always  been  believed.  They  were  con- 
vinced, therefore,  that  an  infallibility  resided  in  the 
church,  and  that  the  profession  of  the  true  religion 
could  never  fail. 

This  last  assertion  is   very  certain.     The  fathers 
never  believed  that  the  profession  of  the   true  faith 
could  be  so  far  obscured,  as  to  be  totally  abolished. 
But  did   they  believe,   that   the  greatest  part  of  the 
church  could  not  fall  into  capital  errors,  or  that  the 
true  faith  could  not  subsist  together  with  some  errors? 
This  is  what  can  never  be  evinced  from  their  writings; 
and  yet,  for  the  above  objection  to  be  of  any  force,  we 
must  first  allow,  that  the  primitive  fathers  had  the  same 
notions  as  modern  divines;  and  believed,  as  they  do, 
that  the  profession  of  the  true  faith  is  incompatible 
with  errors  no  wise  essential ;  but   of  this  they  had 
never  any  idea.     When  they  spoke  of  errors,  they 
only  meant  such  as  sapped  the  foundations  of  religion ; 
on  other  points  they  allowed  themselves  great  latitude 
of  opinion.     I  appeal  to  those   who  are  well  versed 
in  their  writings,  and  in  the  ancient  councils,  for  the 
truth  of  this  assertion  :  I  ask  them,  moreover,  whether 
they  have  ever  discovered  in  either,  that  every  error 
is  damnable,  and  deserving  of  an  anathema  ?    Should 
this  be  said,  nothing  would  be  more  easy  than  to  re- 
fute such  a  position,  by  demonstrating  that  many  of 
the  most  holy  and  orthodox  prelates  and  doctors,  were 
not  exempt  from  error;  while  they  remained  worthy 
members  of  the  Catholic  church.     It  is  not  true,  then, 
that  all  errors  were  thought  deserving:  anathema  in 
the  ancient  church ;  and  it  is  equally  false,  that  this 
ecclesiastical  commination  is  a  proof  of  infallibility. 


so 

unless  we  suppose  that  no  anathema  was  ever  pro- 
nounced, but  by  an  infallible  tribunal.  Now,  innu- 
merable doctrines  anathematized  by  particular  coun- 
cils and  bishops,  who  can  have  no  claim  to  infallibili- 
ty, are  so  many  unanswerable  arguments  against  this 
supposition.  From  anathemas,  therefore,  no  conclu- 
sion can  be  formed  in  favour  of  infallibility :  especial- 
ly as  the  church  has  often  pronounced  them,  in  cases 
where  infallibility  was  no  wise  concerned,  and  her 
sole  object  was  to  maintain  good  order  and  discipline. 
I  say,  moreover,  that  from  this  position,  viz:  "To  de- 
liver for  truth,  that  which  has  always  been  believed," 
is  no  argument  of  the  church's  infallibility,  but  mere- 
ly points  out,  in  case  of  doubt  or  dispute,  the  most 
obvious  means  of  coming  at  the  truth :  for  it  may  well 
be  presumed,  that  what  was  believed  originally  and 
generally,  ought  to  form  the  creed  of  the  present  ge- 
neration. This  may  be  styled  a  moral  rule  of  conduct 
in*the  ordinary  course  of  life,  but  is  not,  nevertheless, 
without  its  exceptions.  Besides,  if  universal  belief 
should  establish  a  species  of  infallibility,  it  would  not 
be  the  effect  of  an  unerring  judgment  in  the  church, 
but  of  the  moral  impossibility,  that  an  article  of  reli- 
gion, which  had  always  been  believed  and  professed, 
without  any  alteration,  should  prove  false  in  the  end. 
But  this  cannot  be  deemed  any  special  privilege ;  it 
would  argue  great  folly,  not  to  say  infidelity,  to  doubt 
of  any  human  fact,  were  it  attested  in  this  manner  : 
not  because  any  infallibility  was  requisite  to  transmit 
it  to  posterity,  but  because,  with  respect  to  facts  de- 
livered down  to  us,  we  have  no  rule  to  go  by,  so  cer- 
tain as  this  uniform  agreement  of  testimony. 
Let  divines,  therefore,  cease  preconizing  an  infalli* 


81 


Ibility  of  judgment,  which  never  subsisted  out  of  their 
own  imaginations.  It  is  the  privilege  of  the  Chris- 
tian church,  as  it  was  that  of  the  Jewish,  to  preserve 
the  essential  foundations  of  religion,  and  the  sacred 
deposite  whence  the  knowledge  of  them  is  derived* 
By  the  guidance  of  this  deposite,  and  the  special  pro- 
tection of  God,  she  never  can  perish.  But  neither  her 
perpetuity  nor  indefectibility  can  secure  her  from 
common  mistakes,  or  raise  her  above  the  level  of  com- 
mon humanity.  As  long  as  she  is  made  up  of  fallible 
men,  so  long  will  the  weaknesses,  errors,  and  supersti- 
tions of  mankind  insinuate  themselves  into  her  most 
sacred  tenets,  and  purest  morality.  But  in  this  case 
she  has  the  same  resource  as  the  Jewish  synagogue 
had ;  she  must  refer  the  matter  to  the  law  and  to  testi- 
mony. (Jsa.  viii.  20.)  Here  only  is  infallibility  to  be 
found,  As  long  as  the  church  follows  this  rule  she 
shall  never  err.  But  nothing  insures  her  against  mis- 
take the  moment  she  forsakes  it,  and  takes  upon  her 
to  decide  upon  mere  probabilities,  without  the  warrant 
either  of  evidence  or  revelation.  For  when  she  de- 
cides upon  matters  that  are  merely  probable,  whence 
can  she  derive  her  infallibility  ?  It  cannot  be  from 
inspiration,  which,  as  all  agree,  she  does  not  possess; 
nor  from  any  fresh  revelation  or  evidence,  for  then  it 
would  follow,  that  the  doctrine  delivered  by  Christ 
and  his  apostles  was  not  complete.  What  therefore 
can  be  the  principle  of  this  infallibility  ?  Is  it  the  pre- 
sent belief?  but  we  have  seen,  that  this  is  merely  a 
moral  rule  of  conduct,  and  carries  with  it  no  greater 
proof  of  infallibility  in  the  church,  than  the  general 
belief  of  the  existence  of  Julius  Ca?sar,  confers  infalli- 
bility upon  the  relations  of  history.    Thus,  neither  rea- 


82 

son  nor  authority,  furnishes  a  single  argument  in  favour 
of  this  pretended  infallibility.  The  most  plausible 
supports  of  tliis  system,  must  therefore  be  drawn  from 
the  practice  of  the  church,  which  Ave  will  now  proceed 
to  consider. 

It  is  said,  that  as  often  as  any  contest  has  arisen  in 
the  church,  and  has  been  determined  by  her  decision, 
Catholics  have  always  thought  themselves  obliged  to 
submit.  Those  who  refused  to  do  so,  were  regarded 
as  heretics,  were  cut  off  from  the  body  of  the  faithful, 
and  were  thought  to  belong  no  more  to  the  Christian 
society.  Now,  to  have  a  right  to  excommunicate  those 
who  will  not  submit,  the  church  must  be  secured  from 
error  in  those  doctrines,  to  which  she  claims  our  as- 
sent. Therefore,  the  practice  of  the  church  in  exact- 
ing submission  to  her  decrees,  is  a  proof  of  her  infal- 
libility; because,  without  this,  such  a  claim,  under  such 
heavy  threats,  would  be  an  act  of  sacrilegious  usurpa- 
tion and  tyranny.  This  argument  is  very  plausible 
at  first  sight,  but  is,  in  reality,  nothing  more  than  a 
begging  of  the  question.  For,  it  is  only  in  the  supposi- 
tion that  this  infallibility  does  exist,  that  the  practice 
of  the  church  can  be  alleged  to  evince  it.  Were  not 
this  the  case,  what  would  they  conclude,  who  question 
this  infallibility  ?  They  would  say,  no  doubt,  that  the 
church  not  being  infallible,  as  is  pretended,  her  prac- 
tice on  this  head,  is  rather  an  abuse  that  ought  to  be 
reformed,  than  a  law  of  obligation;  that  nothing  is 
more  dangerous,  and  often  less  logical,  than  to  argue 
from  matter  of  fact  to  matter  of  right,  because,  the  lat- 
ter must  first  be  established,  before  the  former  can 
possibly  be  an  argument  for  its  justice.  Thus,  when 
several  popes  presumed  to  enforce  acts  of  jurisdiction. 


83 

m  matters  merely  temporal,  to  the  prejudice  of  prin- 
ces, they  were  withstood  as  so  many  usurpations,  and 
abolished  as  tyrannical,  and  no  wise  competent  to 
prescribe  against  right.  It  is  great  weakness,  there- 
fore, to  urge  this  practice  as  a  proof  of  infallibilit' . 
since  nothing  decisive  can  follow  from  it,  till  it  be  de- 
monstrated to  be  a  just  and  equitable  practice,  which 
I  am  very  certain  will  never  be  done.  But  even  sup- 
posing it  to  be  just  and  allowable,  it  furnishes  no  de- 
monstration of  infallibility,  nor  would  this  follow  from 
it  as  a  necessary  consequence  :  excommunication  has 
been  often  employed  upon  \ery  trifling  occasions, 
where  articles  of  faith  were  no  wise  concerned,  and 
where  both  parties  seemed  equally  in  the  right. 
Such  was  the  case  with  respect  to  the  celebration  of 
Easter,  the  repetition  of  baptism,  the  marriage  of  the 
clergy,  the  affair  of  the  three  chapters,  &c.  where  the 
excommunicating  party  could  not  surely  challenge  the 
privilege  of  being  infallible.  This  act  of  church  au- 
thority, therefore,  is  not  grounded  upon  infallibility, 
but  solely  upon  the  right,  which  every  community  pos- 
sesses, of  framing  laws  and  regulations  for  its  own  well 
being,  and  excluding  every  person  from  its  society, 
who  refuses  to  submit  to  the  rules,  without  which  such 
a  community  cannot  subsist.  Particular  churches 
have  frequently  excommunicated  each  other,  without 
the  least  pretence  to  infallibility.  The  eastern  and 
western  churches  fulminated  against  each  other  for 
ages,  although  the  contest  was  chiefly  for  pre-emi- 
nence and  power.  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen  complain^ 
of  their  ambition  in  his  time. 

Non  causa  pietas,  (bilis  hoc  exagitat  ad  mentienclum 
proca,)  sed  lis  ob  thronos,  (car.  de  sua  vita.)     Nothing, 


84 

therefore,  can  be  less  satisfactory  than  the  argument 
drawn  from  the  practice  of  excommunication,  a  penal- 
ty often  inflicted  without  necessity  and  justice,  fre- 
quently at  the  expense  of  reason  and  truth,  conse- 
quently but  ill  calculated  to  demonstrate  the  existence 
of  the  highest  privilege  ever  claimed  by  mankind. 

But  it  will  be  said,  that,  at  least,  it  was  never  deem- 
ed lawful  to  counteract  the  decisions  of  the  church; 
and  that  after  the  definitive  sentence  was  passed,  no 
man  was  at  liberty  to  contest  the  point  any  longer, 
but  was  obliged  to  submit.  Now,  this  obligation 
could  only  arise  from  the  idea  of  the  church's  infalli- 
bility, and  of  no  appeal  from  her  judgments  being 
legal.  There  might  be  some  weight  in  this  argument, 
were  it  not  the  nature  of  every  sovereign  tribunal  to 
admit  of  no  appeal  from  its  sentence,  although  not 
resting  upon  any  infallible  authority. 

In  every  well-regulated  society  some  supreme  court 
of  judicature  must  necessarily  be  established,  in  order 
to  terminate  finally  those  contentions  among  individu- 
als which,  if  perpetuated,  would  for  ever  disturb  the 
peace  of  the  community.  But  are  such  tribunals,  on 
this  account,  to  be  deemed  infallible  ? — It  is  true,  that 
the  decisions  concerning  truth,  do  not  bear  a  strict  re- 
semblance to  those  that  regard  our  temporal  interests. 
The  first  must  never  deviate  an  iota  from  the  apparent 
light  of  reason  or  revelation — the  second  may  be  mo- 
dified or  relaxed  as  the  public  good  requires.  But 
in  both  cases  the  manner  of  judging  is  the  same,  and 
in  both  cases  the  decisions  of  men,  may  be  equally  mis- 
taken: and  accordingly  we  often  see,  when  one  su- 
preme tribunal  has  been  compelled  to  yield  to  an  ad- 
verse  power,  its  decrees  have  been  reversed,  and 


85 

others  enacted,  which,  during  the  prevalence  of  their 
authors,  are  as  binding  as   the  first.     This  was   the 
case  during  the  famous  disputes  concerning  the  incar- 
nation.    For  two   hundred  years  the  same  opinions 
were  alternately  approved  and  condemned,  as  their 
abettors  or  adversaries  got  the  upper  hand.     It  was, 
therefore,   thought  necessary   to   recur  to  some  su- 
preme authority,  in  order  to  prevent  disputes  becom- 
ing perpetual.     The  spirit  of  charity,  which  is   the 
very  essence  of  religion,  was  greatly  impaired  by  these 
dreadful  quarrels  ;    and  it  was  judged  a  less  danger- 
ous expedient  to  decide  definitively  upon  these  several 
questions,  than  to  suffer  Christians  to  tear  each  other 
to   pieces,   in    support  of  their   respective    opinions. 
But  this  could  not  deprive  individuals  of  the  right  of 
judging  for  themselves  in   speculative    matters.     In 
these  cases,  reason  cannot  yield  to  human  authority 
alone,  especially   when   it  is  known,  that  many  final 
decisions   have   been  discovered  at  last,  disagreeing 
with  truth.     This  made  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen  de- 
clare, "  that  he  was  never  present  at  an  assembly  of 
bishops,  which  did  not  increase  the  evils  they  were 
meant  to  remedy;   the  spirit  of  dispute  and  ambition 
always  prevailing  over  the  dictates  of  reason."     And 
the  judicious  Turretin  adds,  "  that,  if  any  man,  having 
read  the  acts  of  the  councils,  should  regard  them  as 
infallible,  a  physician  would  be  the  proper  person  to 
undertake  his  case  ;"  "  Qui   lectis  conciliorum  actis, 
ea  pro  errare  nesclis  habuerit,  ad  medicos  abligandus 
est."     But,  perhaps,  it  will  be  said,  that  we  are  not 
to  depend  so  securely  upon  the  decisions  of  councils. 
as  upon  the  subsequent  consent  of  the  church.    She 
being  the  depository  of  tradition,  cannot  err  in  mat- 


86 

ters  of  faith,  and,  therefore,  when  she  admits  of  the 
decrees  of  councils,  stamps  the  seal  of  infallibility  up- 
on them.  If  this  be  the  case,  then  are  these  decrees 
no  longer  infallible  in  themselves  :  the  universal  testi- 
mony of  the  church  claiming  alone  this  exalted  privi- 
lege. And  this  is  what  Roman  Catholic  divines  have 
been  compelled  to  maintain,  when  they  perceived  the 
absurdity  of  defending  the  infallibility  of  councils. 
But  even  in  this  supposition,  it  is  evident,  1.  That,  an 
actual  testimony,  although  it  be  universal  respecting 
articles  of  faith,  as  well  as  other  matters  of  fact,  is  in- 
sufficient, unless  these  facts  be  delivered  down  by  tra- 
dition as  perpetual  as  it  is  universal.  For  the  uni- 
versal belief  of  any  fact  is  no  argument  for  its  exist- 
ence, unless  it  be  related  by  respectable  cotemporarj 
authors,  who  vouch  for  its  origin,  and  be  transmitted 
down  to  us  by  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  credible 
witnesses.  2.  This  privilege  is  not  peculiar  to  the 
church;  for  in  matters  of  religion,  as  in  all  others,  a 
perpetual,  uniform,  and  general  consent  must  chal- 
lenge our  belief.  3.  If  this  pretended  universal  tes- 
timony be  confined  to  any  particular  society,  then  does 
it  become  only  a  partial  testimony,  and  its  weight  is 
diminished,  in  proportion  as  it  becomes  less  uniform 
and  general.  To  what,  then,  is  this  boasted  unifor- 
mity reduced  ?  To  a  certain  society  of  Christians ; 
which  although,  perhaps,  more  numerous  than  any 
other  particular  sect,  is  certainly  less  so  than  all  the 
others  collectively.  This  society  of  Christians  claims 
for  it  alone  the  privilege  of  infallibility,  and  sets  at 
nought,  the  testimony  of  all  other  churches :  but,  I  ap- 
prehend, they  ground  their  pretensions  upon  no  better 
reasons  than  the  Laplanders  do,  the  preference  they 


87 

give  to  the  Christian  religion — These  being  asked 
why  they  believed  it  to  be  best,  answered,  that  it  must 
necessarily  be  so,  as  the  Norwegians,  Muscovites,  and 
Swedes  had  embraced  it.  {La  Mov.traye  Voyages, 
torn.  iii.  c.  1 6.)  Many  divines  argue  in  the  same  con- 
clusive manner.  They  support  their  opinions  by  the 
testimony  of  those  only  who  make  it  a  point  of  con- 
science to  think  as  they  do,  and,  as  Turretin  observes, 
setting  themselves  up  for  judges  in  their  own  cause, 
pronounce  themselves  infallible.  Quidquidde  ecclesict 
infallibilitate  et  juribus  docent  pontijicii,  hue  tandem  redit, 
eos  judices  in  propria  causa  sedere  velle.  I  do  not  mean, 
however,  to  deny,  that  a  universal  consent,  carries 
with  it  great  weight,  and  that  every  wise  man  ought 
to  acquiesce  in  it,  when  he  cannot  otherwise  arrive  at 
the  intrinsic  evidence  of  the  fact.  But  it  is  not  any 
infallibility  annexed  to  this  testimony,  that  challenges 
this  assent.  He  believes,  because,  in  this  case,  nei- 
ther reason  nor  prudence,  will  suffer  him  to  do  other- 
wise. But  how  very  rare  is  such  a  universal  agree- 
ment? and  how  much  more  rare  to  find  it  attested 
through  a  long  series  of  ages,  especially,  when  nei- 
ther subscriptions  nor  formulas  were  in  fashion  to 
force,  if  not  an  inward  belief,  yet  an  outward  profes- 
sion, from  those  who  were  too  weak  to  oppose  an 
overbearing  majority,  or  too  indifferent  about  the 
truths  of  religion,  to  exert  themselves  in  her  behalf? 
I  say  outward  professions  have  frequently  been 
forced,  and  these,  it  is  evident,  are  of  no  kind  of  au- 
thority, cum  et  ipsum  nomen  sentential  pereat,  quando  non 
Mud  dicitur,  quod  scntitur,  as  Facundus  observes,  (Jib. 
12.)  Now,  to  allege  such  a  consent  for  the  truth  of 
an  opinion,  is  full  as  absurd  as  to  argue  from  the  gene- 


88 

ral  submission  of  a  nation  to  a  tyrannical  prince,  in 
favour  of  his  usurpation,  which  they  cannot,  or  dare 
not,  resist.  And,  indeed,  may  we  not  fairly  conclude, 
that  the  assent  of  at  least  three  parts  out  of  four, 
among  the  Roman  Catholics,  does  not  proceed  from 
conviction  and  knowledge  of  the  cause;  and  that,  in 
the  rest,  it  is  more  the  effect  of  education,  of  fear,  of 
interest,  or  of  a  conscience  easily  alarmed  at  the  idea 
of  disobedience,  which  is  perpetually  inculcated  as  an 
enormous  crime,  than  the  result  of  mature  delibera- 
tion and  reason  ?  Such  an  agreement,  therefore,  as 
this,  can  never  be  alleged  as  an  argument  for  truth, 
without  destroying  every  possibility  of  distinguishing 
between  a  false  and  true  religion;  since,  by  a  forced 
submission,  an  involuntary  obedience  may  pass  for 
conviction ;  and  since  every  sovereign  power  might 
compel  its  subjects  to  such  an  assent,  whether  the  ob- 
ject of  it  be  true  or  false. 

Such  is  the  obvious  consequence  of  a  submission 
that  is  exacted  under  the  heaviest  anathemas  and  pun- 
ishments. Let  every  man  determine  what  consent 
must  be,  when  extorted  by  such  methods :  JVec  ali- 
quid  prcestaiur  causce,  de  qua  sic  fuerit  judicatum,  ct  con- 
tradicentibus  multum  ex  hoc  firmitatis  accedit.  Convinci- 
tur  enim  Hon  rectc  quisque  judicasse,  quod,  compellente 
alio,  judicavit.  (Fac.  16.)  And  yet  it  is  often  upon 
such  a  submission  only,  such  a  consent,  that  the  infal- 
libility of  the  church  is  defended.  But  neither  the 
one  nor  the  other  can  have  any  weight,  unless  they 
be  perfectly  free  and  rational :  much  less,  if  they 
rest  entirely  upon  an  authority  which  requires  a  blind 
acquiescence,  and  ma^es  it  criminal  to  listen  to  any 
difficulty  that  may  occur  against  its  decrees.     For  it 


*s  extremely  absurd  to  bring  any  uniformity  of  con- 
sent, to  prove  the  truth  of  a  doctrine,  unless  this  con- 
sent be  grounded  upon  conviction :  nay,  I  should  ra- 
ther conclude,  that  submission  extorted  by  force  and 
apprehension,  so  far  from  establishing  the  truth  of 
any  system,  is  an  argument  of  its  falsity;  that  an 
agreement  in  opinion,  without  a  competent  knowledge 
of  the  matter,  is  no  agreement  at  all ;  or  nothing  more 
than  dissimulation  and  deceit,  unless  springing  from 
conviction.  In  a  word,  that  a  forced  consent,  being 
neither  general  nor  perpetual,  can  determine  no  man 
to  embrace  an  opinion,  unless  he  have  other  powerful 
motives  for  doing  it. 

I  have  hitherto  alleged  all  the  common  arguments 
for  infallibility,  and  I  think,  whoever  will  consider 
them  attentively,  will  discover  them  to  be  but  slender 
props  to  so  weighty  a  privilege.  I  will  allow,  not- 
withstanding, that  such  a  system  would  be  convenient, 
that  it  would  be  admirably  calculated  for  ascertain- 
ing the  truth,  and  quieting  the  anxiety  of  uneasy  con- 
sciences, provided  it  had  pleased  the  Almighty  to  es- 
tablish it;  or  if  experience  did  not  show  he  has  not 
done  so.  But  the  convenience  of  a  system  is  a  poor 
plea  for  its  reality;  and  if  this  argument  were  suffi- 
cient to  require  our  belief  of  it,  new  ones,  for  the  same 
reason,  would  be  daily  invented,  and  intruded  upon 
the  public,  as  more  convenient  than  the  former.  How 
wide  a  field  would  then  be  opened  to  the  wild  fancies 
of  system-makers  !  What  deviation  from  the  simple 
methods,  which  the  Almighty  has  adopted  to  establish 
his  religion  !  Had  He  been  pleased,  in  His  wisdom,  to 
remove  every  difficulty  in  matters  of  faith,  and  to  pro- 
pose them  with  such  evidence,  that  the  most  ignorant 

12 


90 

Christian  could  not  possibly  have  been  mistaken,  He 
certainly  could  have  done  so.  This  system  would 
have  been  at  least  as  convenient  as  that  of  an  infalli- 
ble tribunal :  nay,  had  Almighty  God  regarded  the 
convenience  only,  He  would  have  preferred  the  first ; 
.for  evidence  would  undoubtedly  have  made  any  in- 
quiry quite  useless ;  whereas,  the  difficulties  attending 
examination,  place  the  belief  of  infallibility  as  much 
above  the  capacity  of  the  simple  and  ignorant, 
as  is  the  inquiry  into  any  other  point  of  doctrine.  _But 
God,  in  creating  us  to  know  and  to  love  Him,  has  left 
to  our  understanding  its  privilege  of  investigating 
truth,  and  to  our  hearts  their  freedom  in  the  choice 
of  moral  good.  To  this  end,  it  was  necessary,  that 
man  should  not  be  influenced,  beyond  resistance,  by 
the  charms  of  virtue,  or  the  evidence  of  opinions.  In 
such  a  supposition,  he  could  reap  no  merit  from  prac- 
tising virtue,  or  adhering  to  truth.  What  I  say  of 
irresistible  evidence,  may  be  equally  applied  to  infal- 
libility. Had  man  been  allowed  to  choose  for  him- 
self, one  of  these  preservatives  against  error,  had 
certainly  been  adopted.  But  the  ways  of  men  are 
not  the  ways  of  God ;  and  it  would  be  high  presump- 
tion, to  expect  that  His  wisdom  should  ply  to  our  ap- 
parent convenience.  Now,  it  is  clear,  from  our  innu- 
merable disputes,  that  the  Almighty  has  not  adopted 
this  line  of  evidence,  and  it  is  equally  clear,  from  the 
uncertainty  of  our  decisions,  that  He  has  not  establish- 
ed any  infallible  tribunal.  Such  a  privilege,  there- 
fore, is  entirely  chimerical ;  it  has  no  foundation  in 
scripture,  and  the  history  of  the  church  gives  constant 
evidence  against  it.  Forced  and  unnatural  interpre- 
tations of  a  few  scriptural  passages,  first  gave  it  birth ; 


91 

and  illogical  inferences,  instead  of  solid  argument, 
have  been  employed  to  establish  it.  But  they  only 
are  imposed  upon,  whom  a  painful  discussion  would 
cost  too  much;  who  deem  it  better  to  indulge  in  an 
indolent  acquiescence  in  the  determination  of  supe- 
riors, even  at  the  hazard  of  being  deceived,  than  to 
enter  upon  inquiries  that  might  disturb  ancient  no- 
tions, and  so  bring  on  a  painful  struggle  between  pre- 
judice and  reason.  Thus,  a  love  of  ease  on  the  one 
hand,  and  ambition  on  the  other,  joined  frequently 
with  an  indifference  about  religion,  the  convenience 
of  system,  and  an  appearance  of  humility,  have  sane* 
tified  an  opinion,  which  reason  rejects,  and  from  which 
the  church  that  pretends  to  it,  reaps  but  trifling  ad- 
vantages. For,  in  reality,  when  have  we  discovered, 
that  this  notion  of  infallibility,  ever  silenced  any  dis- 
putes between  religious  opponents  ?  Let  us  look 
back  upon  the  first  ages  of  the  church,  and  see  if  her 
decisions,  as  soon  as  pronounced,  were  sufficient  to 
awe  jarring  disputants  to  submission  :  yet  this  would 
have  been  the  case,  had  any  idea  of  infallibility,  pre- 
vailed. How  many  centuries  passed  away  before 
men  grew  cool,  and  heresies  were  extinguished,  even 
after  the  most  solemn  declarations  of  the  church ! 
Whoever  reads  the  history  of  the  Arians,  the  Nesto- 
rians,  the  Eutychians,  the  Monotholites,  to  say  no- 
thing of  heretics  of  less  notoriety,  will  soon  perceive 
that  infallibility  had  little  to  do  in  settling  these  dis- 
putes. The  faithful  throughout  the  world,  were  in- 
duced to  submit,  by  convincing  themselves  gradually 
of  the  solidity  of  the  arguments,  upon  which  the 
church's  decisions  were  grounded.  When  I  say  the 
faithful.  J  mean  such  as  have  some  notion  of  what 


\ 


92 

they  believe.  For,  as  to  those  who  limit  themselves 
to  words  only,  (and  this  is  the  case  with  the  generali- 
ty of  men,)  I  am  of  opinion  that  their  belief  rests  sole- 
ly upon  authority.  But  this  proceeds  not  from  any 
persuasion  of  such  authority  being  infallible  :  for,  in 
other  Christian  churches,  where  infallibility  was 
never  heard  of,  the  people  submit  with  the  same  do- 
cility, and  pay  equal  deference  to  the  voice  of  their 
pastors.  In  this  respect,  the  unlettered  multitude,  is 
every  where  the  same.  The  ignorant  man,  who 
would  be  a  sincere  Roman  Catholic  at  Rome,  would 
be  fully  as  sincere  a  Protestant  in  England  ;  or  per- 
haps an  honest  mussulman  at  Constantinople ;  acting 
in  all  places  upon  the  same  principle,  viz.  a  blind  obe- 
dience to  his  teachers,  whether  they  lead  him  into 
truth  or  error.  Such  are  the  obvious  consequences 
of  a  faith,  the  merit  and  excellence  of  which,  consists 
in  believing  without  ideas.  A  person  who  knows  no 
other  religion,  than  that  which  his  superiors  have 
taught  him,  and  who  is  acquainted  with  no  teachers, 
but  such  as  chance  has  thrown  in  his  way,  believes 
every  thing,  and  believes  nothing  ;  for,  not  having  any 
idea  of  what  he  believes,  all  his  religion  consists  in 
words  and  formulas,  let  him  belong  to  what  commu- 
nion he  may.  To  such,  therefore,  as  these,  infallibili- 
ty can  be  of  little  service ;  since  their  belief  rests 
solely  upon  the  word  of  their  pastors.  And  as  to  those 
who  are  more  enlightened,  this  pretension  would  be 
equally  unavailing,  as  nothing  but  solid  reasons  can 
command  their  assent.  Convinced  that  no  human 
authority  can  dispense  with  a  rational  inquiry,  they 
can  find  no  peace  of  conscience,  no  tranquillity  of 
mind,  but  in  the  conviction  of  having  done  their  bes*: 


93 

:o  discover  the  truth,  and  the  ways  of  salvation,  by 
calling  in  to  the  assistance  of  reason,  the  light  of  re- 
velation, by  which  alone  they  hope  to  be  infallibly 
secured   against  error.—- Wherefore,  the  dangerous 
consequences  of  a  free  inquiry,  must  appear  greatly 
exaggerated  to  every  unprejudiced    mind.     To    no 
purpose  are  we  told  by  Roman  Catholic  divines,  that, 
without  this  infallibility,  there  can  be  no  uniformity 
in  belief,  and  that  each  individual  will  have  a  religion 
of  his  own :   for,  allowing  this  to  be  true  to  a  certain 
latitude,  where  can  be  the  crime  of  judging  for  our- 
selves in  a  matter  where  each  one  is  personally  con- 
cerned ?    Besides,  has  this  pretended  infallibility  ever 
produced   a  uniformity  of  sentiment  in  the    Roman 
Catholic  church?     Are  not  warm  disputes  and  un- 
charitable wranglings,  perpetually  echoing  in  their 
schools,  upon   very  important  questions  concerning 
grace,  the  infallibility  of  the  pope,  the  supremacy  of 
councils,  the  intention  requisite  for  administering  the 
sacraments,  and  a  variety  of  other  weighty  and  doc- 
trinal points  ?     Do  not  Molinists  and  Thomists,  and 
other  bodies  of  theologians,  mutually  accuse  each  other 
of  material  heresy  ?     And  do  they  not  preserve  an 
appearance  of  Catholicity,  merely  by  subscribing  the 
same  formulas  of  words,  yet  reserving  to  themselves 
the  liberty  of  interpreting  them  as  they  please  ?     So 
that  we  may  say  of  the  Roman  Catholic  church,  what 
the  sage  La  Bruyere  pronounced  of  a  nation  in  ge- 
neral :   "  It  professes  the  same  worship,  and  has  but 
one  religion;  but   the  truth  is,  it  has  really  many; 
nay,   almost  every  individual  has  «one  of  his  own." 
(Charac.  des  Esprits  forts.)     Now,  can  it  be  supposed 
that  such  a  uniformity  as  this,  is  either  necessary,  or 


94 

sufficient  for  salvation?     If  so — then  religion  consists 
in  nothing  but  words.   If  not — then  of  what  service  is 
infallibility,  which  is  productive  only  of  such  a  unifor- 
mity as  those  who  support  this   system  deem  insuffi- 
cient ?  the  gospel,  it  is  true,  inculcates  nothing  so  fre~ 
quently  as  charity   and  union,  because  nothing  is  so 
essential  to  the  interests  of  religion.     But  it  is  rather 
a  union  of  hearts,  than  a  union  of  opinions ;   and  St. 
Paul,  exhorting  the  Philippians  to  adopt  the   senti- 
ments with  which  he  had  endeavoured  to   inspire 
them,  advises  them  to  make  a  point   of  being  united 
in  those  things   with   which   they   were   acquainted  : 
leaving  them  at  liberty  upon  other  matters,  till  God 
should  be  pleased  to   favour  them   with  new   lights. 
(Philip,  iii.  15.)     This  is  a  genuine  gospel  regulation 
— this   only,  comes   within   the  line  of  our  duty,  be- 
cause it  is  agreeable  to  the  rules  of  reason  and  jus- 
tice.    If  we  adopt  this  injunction,  infallibility  becomes 
useless ;   and  uniformity  of  belief  is  a  duty  in  those 
matters  only,  to  the  knowledge  of  which  we  have  already 
attained.     As  to  other  articles,  it  is  not  by  any  means 
more  criminal  to  oppose  them,  than  such  as  are  totally 
foreign  to  religion.     Upon  these  we   may  think  with 
others,  or  dissent  from  them,  without  either  merit  or 
reproach,  unless  other  motives  than  a  love  of  truth 
should  influence  our  opinions.     In  this  case,  we  should 
indeed  be  criminal :  not  because  we  do  not  adopt  the 
creed  of  other  people,   but   because   we  suffer  our- 
selves to  be  actuated  by  the  views  of  interest,  fear,  or 
other  motives  too  base  to  regulate  the  opinions  of  an 
honest  man.    It  would  have  been,  doubtless,  a  happi- 
ness to  mankind   to  be  placed  beyond  the  possibility 
of  deception.     But  the  Almighty,  for  wise  and  merci- 


95 

ful  reasons,  has  ordered  it  otherwise.  It  is  not  for 
us  to  fathom  the  depths  of  His  providence,  but  to  rest 
contented  with  the  knowledge  He  has  been  pleased 
to  communicate,  and  not  arrogate  to  ourselves  an  in- 
fallibility, which  belongs  properly  to  Him  alone,  and 
of  which  he  does  not  choose  to  make  any  human  socie- 
ty a  partaker.  It  is  our  duty  to  pay  a  proper  re- 
spect to  the  decisions  of  the  Christian  church,  to  re- 
vere her  tribunal,  and  never  to  reason  upon  her  or- 
dinances but  with  decency  and  candour.  But  this 
does  not  deprive  us  of  our  right  to  discuss  the  justice 
and  truth  of  her  decrees.  And  in  this  discussion,  we 
must  observe  the  same  rules  that  serve  to  guide  us 
in  other  inquiries.  Speculative  truths  must  rest  en- 
tirely upon  evidence  or  probability  ;  and  matters  of 
fact  upon  the  witnesses  that  support  them.  In  a  word, 
all  speculative  religion  consists  in  knowing,  if  what  is 
proposed  to  be  believed,  be  certain  from  reason,  or  evi- 
dent from  revelation  ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  certainty 
of  an  opinion  must  be  demonstrated  by  argument :  and 
the  revelation  of  it  must  be  demonstrated  by  facts. 
Now,  I  say,  we  may  be  fully  convinced  of  the  truth  of 
either,  without  having  recourse  to  any  infallible  au- 
thority upon  earth.  This  system,  therefore,  was  in- 
vented without  necessity,  is  supported  without  proofs, 
rests  upon  manifest  suppositions,  and  appears  calcu- 
lated solely  to  secure  the  dependence  of  the  people, 
and  blind  submission  to  the  rulers  of  the  church. 
Neither  does  it  follow,  that  by  rejecting  the  idea  of 
a  supernatural  infallibility,  every  doctrinal  point  must 
become  dubious  and  unsettled.  In  other  branches  of 
knowledge,  many  truths  are  admitted  as  certain, 
without  the  interference  of  any  living,  infallible  au- 


96 

thority.  And,  indeed,  of  what  service  would  reason 
be  to  us,  that  precious  gift  of  Heaven,  if  it  were 
meant  only  to  lead  us  astray  under  the  guidance  of 
a  living  instructor,  who  has  no  means  of  arriving  at 
the  truth,  but  such  as  we  ourselves  may  employ  ? 
Were  the  church  gifted  with  the  light  of  divine  in- 
spiration, it  would  then  be  evident  where  her  infalli- 
bility could  be  found.  But  to  this  she  does  not  pre- 
tend :  and  builds  her  decisions  upon  testimony  alone. 
She  can,  therefore,  claim  no  infallibility,  but  such  as 
is  agreeable  to  the  nature  of  testimony :  viz.  a  moral 
presumption  only  resulting  from  it,  when  at  any  time 
it  is  universal  and  uncontradicted.  This  presumption, 
moreover,  being  nothing  more  than  what  may  be- 
long to  other  matters  of  fact,  is  not  a  special  privi- 
lege of  the  church.  It  claims  our  assent  more  from 
motives  of  reason  than  religion,  because  it  would  be 
as  absurd  to  withhold  it  in  matters  of  religion  only, 
when  it  is  supported  by  circumstances  that  carry 
moral  certainty  with  them,  as  it  would  be  weak  and 
simple,  to  acquiesce  where  these  circumstances  are 
wanted. 

The  only  method,  therefore,  of  arriving  at  the 
truth,  is  by  analysis  and  investigation :  I  mean  for 
men  of  learning  and  abilities ;  for,  as  to  the  common 
people,  their  faith  must  rest  chiefly  upon  authority ; 
but  this  authority  need  not  be  infallible.  Evident 
and  simple  truths  are  easily  believed  without  infalli- 
bility in  their  teachers,  and  such  as  consist  in  subtile 
discussions,  seldom  appertain  to  the  essence  of  reli- 
gion. It  would  be  cruel  to  challenge  the  belief  of 
them,  from  people  who  cannot  possibly  have  an  idea 
of  their  merits.     In  obscure  cases,  the  decision  of  no 


97 

infallible  authority  is  requisite,  because  such  cases  are 
generally  unnecessary.  But  whether  such  a  decision 
takes  place  or  no,  it  cannot  certainly  alter  the  nature 
of  truth,  nor  change  the  force  of  argument,  that 
makes  for  or  against  it.  What,  therefore,  we  must 
do,  is  to  bear  with  each  other's  opinions  in  meekness 
and  charity.  Both  reason  and  religion  abhor  the 
idea  of  domineering  over  the  belief  of  our  neighbour. 
Each  one  has  an  unalienable  right  of  thinking  for 
himself  in  matters  of  religion,  as  in  all  others,  and 
adopting  the  principles  which  good  sense  and  an  up- 
right conscience  suggest.  And,  indeed,  why  in  reli- 
gion only  should  this  method  be  rejected  ?  Does  not 
every  man  believe,  because  he  regards  the  object  of  his 
belief  grounded  upon  reason  ?  Must  not  even  a  Ro- 
man Catholic  tell  us,  that  he  believes  his  to  be  the 
only  true  church,  because  such  a  belief  appears  to 
him  rational  and  certain?  If  his  belief  be  not  ration- 
al, if  he  submit  to  authority,  without  understanding 
or  weighing  the  doctrines  it  inculcates,  his  belief  is 
not  faith,  it  is  credulity,  it  is  weakness.  A  man  might 
with  equal  reason  be  a  Jew,  a  Mahometan,  or  a  De- 
ist, as  they  ground  their  principles  upon  an  authori- 
ty, whose  decrees  they  deem  sacred,  and  which  they 
neglect  to  examine.  Let  the  merit,  therefore,  of  a 
blind  submission  be  ever  so  much  extolled,  I  will 
maintain,  that  faith  cannot  be  meritorious  unless  it  be 
rational ;  and  it  can  be  rational  in  him  only,  who 
knows  and  weighs  the  arguments  that  enforce  it. 
Nay,  should  he  be  fortunate  enough  to  hit  upon  truth, 
without  such  an  inquiry,  his  faith  in  that  case  would 
be  of  little  value,  as  he  could  assign  no  reasons  for 
being  secured  from  error.     The  knowledge,  then,  of 

13 


93 

all  religion,  both  natural  and  revealed,  depends  upon 
inquiry.  It  is  the  only  method  of  arriving  at  truth, 
and  every  man  who  has  his  salvation  at  heart,  ought 
diligently  to  adopt  it.  The  grace  of  the  Almighty 
will  never  be  wanting  to  those  who  do  it  with  sinceri- 
ty and  attention. 

Whether  they  who  admit  this  plea  to  infallibility, 
or  they  who  reject  it,  would  be  more  likely  to  arrive 
at  the  true  meaning  of  the  Scriptures  on  doctrinal 
points,  is  a  question  which  Roman  Catholic  writers 
themselves  have  determined. 

"  In  a  work  (says  Dr.  Magee)  which,  within  a  few 
years,  has  obtained  the  most  distinguished  mark  of 
approbation,  from  the  highest  learned  society  of  a 
nation  holding  communion  with  the  church  of  Rome, 
we  meet  with  a  detailed  statement  of  those  causes, 
which  have  disqualified  the  votaries  of  that  church 
for  the  task  of  Scripture  interpretation.  After  an 
enumeration  of  the  advantages,  derived  to  the  litera- 
ture and  civilization  of  Christendom,  from  religious 
houses,  as  depositaries  of  the  remains  of  ancient  learn- 
ing, the  author  thus  proceeds : — 4  If  the  churchmen 
preserved  in  this  manner  the  faint  tradition  of  know- 
ledge, it  must,  at  the  same  time  be  acknowledged, 
that  in  their  hands  it  more  than  once  became  danger- 
ous, and  was  converted  by  its  guardians  to  pernicious 
purposes.  The  domination  of  Rome,  built  upon  a 
scaffolding  of  false  historical  proofs,  had  need  of  the 
assistance  of  those  faithful  auxiliaries,  to  employ  on 
the  one  side  their  half  knowledge  to  fascinate  men's 
eyes,  and  on  the  other  to  prevent  those  eyes  from 
perceiving  the  truth,  and  from  becoming  enlightened 
by  the  torch  of  criticism.     The  local  usurpations  of 


99 

the  clergy,  in  several  places,  were  founded  on  similar 
claims,  and  had  need  of  similar  means  for  their  pre- 
servation. It  followed,  therefore,  both  that  the  little 
knowledge  permitted  should  be  mixed  with  error,  and 
that  the  nations  should  be  carefully  maintained  in 
profound  ignorance,  favourable  to  superstition. 
Learning,  as  far  as  possible,  was  rendered  inaccessi- 
ble to  the  laity.  The  study  of  the  ancient  languages 
was  represented  as  idolatrous  and  abominable.  Above 
all,  the  reading  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  that  sacred 
inheritance  of  all  Christians,  was  severely  interdicted. 
To  read  the  Bible,  without  the  permission  of  one's 
superiors,  was  a  crime  :  to  translate  it  into  the  vulgar 
tongue,  would  have  been  a  temerity  worthy  of  the 
severest  punishment.  The  Popes  had  indeed  their 
reasons  for  preventing  the  word  of  Jesus  Christ  from 
reaching  the  people,  and  a  direct  communication  from 
being  established  between  the  gospel  and  the  Chris- 
tian. When  it  becomes  necessary  to  keep  in  the 
shade  objects  as  conspicuous  as  faith  and  public  wor- 
ship, it  behooved  the  darkness  to  be  universal  and 
impenetrable.'  (  Villers's  Essay  on  the  Reformation  of 
Luther,  p.  88,  90.)  The  same  writer,  in  another 
place,  thus  contrasts  the  characters  of  the  Protestant 
and  Romish  churches,  as  to  their  grounds  of  assent 
to  sacred  truths. — '  The  church  of  Rome  said,  i  Sub- 
mit, without  examination,  to  authority  !'  The  Protest- 
ant church  said,  '  Examine,  and  submit  only  to  thy 
own  conviction.'  '  The  one  commanded  men  to  be- 
lieve blindly :  the  other  taught  them,  with  the  apos- 
tle, to  reject  the  bad,  and  choose  only  that  which  is 
good.'  {Ibid.  p.  294.)  And  when  the  church  of  Rome 
was,  at  length,  obliged,  by  the  necessities  of  self-de- 


100 

fence,  to  grant  to  her  faithful  sons  the  privilege  of 
theological  investigation,  in  what  way  does  the  same 
writer  represent  the  system  of  studies  permitted  for 
this  purpose  ?  The  theology  of  the  Romanist,  and 
that  of  the  Protestant,  he  decribes,  as  '  two  worlds  in 
opposite  hemispheres,  which  have  nothing  common 
except  the  name.' — '  The  Catholic  theology  rests 
(says  he)  on  the  inflexible  authority  of  the  decisions 
of  the  church,  and  therefore  debars  the  man  who 
studies  it  from  all  free  exercise  of  his  reason.  It  has 
preserved  the  jargon,  and  all  the  barbarous  appen- 
dages of  the  scholastic  philosophy.  We  perceive  in 
it  the  work  of  darkness  of  the  monks  of  the  tenth 
century.  •  In  short,  the  happiest  thing  which  can  be- 
fall him  who  has  unfortunately  learnt  it,  is  speedily 
to  forget  it.  The  Protestant  theology,  on  the  con- 
trary, rests  on  a  system  of  examination,  on  the  unli- 
mited use  of  reason.  The  most  liberal  exegesis  opens 
for  it  the  knowledge  of  sacred  antiquity ;  criticism, 
that  of  the  history  of  the  church  ;  it  regards  the  doc- 
trinal part,  reduced  to  purity  and  simplicity,  as  only 
the  body  of  religion,  the  positive  form  which  it  re- 
quires ;  and  it  is  supported  by  philosophy  in  the  ex- 
amination of  the  laws  of  nature,  of  morality,  and  of 
the  relations  of  men  to  the  Divine  Being.  Whoever 
wishes  to  be  instructed  in  history,  in  classical  litera- 
ture, and  philosophy,  can  choose  nothing  better  than 
a  course  of  Protestant  theology.'  {Ibid.  p.  307,  308.) 
. — Such  are  the  observations  contained  in  a  work, 
which  has  been  distinguished  by  a  prize,  conferred 
by  the  national  institute  of  France. 

M  Perhaps  one  of  the   most  decisive  proofs   of  the 
justice  of  this  writer's  remarks  on  the  state  of  sacred 


101 

literature  in  the  Roman  church,  has  been  supplied 
by  the  late  republication,  in  this  country,  of  that 
wretched  specimen  of  Scripture  criticism,  Ward's 
Errata.  This  powerless  offspring  of  a  feeble  parent, 
which  was  supposed  to  have  perished  when  it  first 
saw  the  light  above  a  century  ago,  has  lately,  upon 
signs  of  reanimation,  been  hailed  in  Ireland  with 
shouts  of  joy.  And  the  meagre  abstract  of  Gregory 
Martin's  discovery  of  the  manifold  corruptions  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  a  work  which  has  itself  lain  for  two 
hundred  years  overwhelmed  by  confutation,  has 
been  received  by  the  Romanists  of  this  part  of  the 
empire,  with  a  gratulation  that  might  well  become 
the  darkest  ages  of  the  church.  A  work  condemn- 
ing  the  Protestant  translation  of  the  Bible  for  using 
the  term  messenger  instead  of  angel  (in  Mai.  ii.  7,  iii. 
1.  Mat.  xi.  10.  Luke  vii.  27,  &c.)  by  which  the  cha- 
racter of  angel  is  withdrawn  from  the  priesthood,  and 
of  a  sacrament  from  orders  : — for  not   rendering  the 

Words     (in    Hebr.     xi.     21.)     jrpoff«uvn<r«v  Em  to  axpcv  ms  patSs  aura, 

as  the  Rhemish  does,  adored  the  top  of  his  rod,  and 
thereby  surreptitiously  removing  one  of  the  principal 
Scripture  arguments  for  image  worship  : — for  ascrib- 
ing to  the  word  7D3>  in  the  second  commandment,  the 
meaning  graven  image,  whilst  the  Rhemish  renders  it 
graven  thing,  which,  with  those  who  admit  an  image 
not  to  be  a  thing,  will  exempt  images  from  the  prohi- 
bition of  the  commandment : — for  not  g-ivine:  to  the 
words  niravo.a,  and  pamitentia  the  sense  of  penance,  but 
merely  assigning  to  them  their  true  interpretation, 
repentance,  and  thus  doing  wilful  despite  to  the  sa- 
crament of  penance : — a  work,  I  say,  condemning  the 
Protestant  translations  of  the  Bible  for  these,   and 


102 

some  other  such  errors ;  and  in  all  cases  demonstrat- 
ing the  error  by  one  and  the  same  irrefragable 
proof— that  the  Romish  version  is  the  true  one,  and 
that  the  Protestant  version,  which  differs  from  it, 
must  consequently  be  false — is  certainly  not  such  a  one 
as  might,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  be  expected  to  be 
raked  up  by  the  clergy  of  a  widely  extended  commu- 
nion, and  exhibited  triumphantly  as  a  masterpiece 
of  critical  erudition.  In  the  opinion  of  many,  this 
miserable  performance  did  not  deserve  an  answer ; 
especially  as  every  argument  which  it  contained 
had  been  in  former  times  repeatedly  confuted.  Per- 
haps, however,  they  judged  more  rightly,  who 
thought,  that  even  the  weakest  reasonings  should 
be  exposed,  lest  they  might  be  imagined  to  be  strong, 
and  that  even  the  most  hackneyed  arguments  should 
be  replied  to,  lest  they  might  be  conceived  to  be  new. 
Accordingly,  this  work  received  an  answer  from  Dr. 
Ryan,  whose  zealous  exertions  in  the  cause  of  reli- 
gious truth  are  well  known,  and  is  about  to  receive 
another  from  the  reverend  Richard  Grier,  of  Middle- 
town.  These  gentlemen,  at  all  events,  display  cou- 
rage in  their  enterprise,  since  the  author  whom  they 
attack,  backed  by  the  whole  council  of  Trent,  has 
pronounced,  that  whosoever  shall  not  receive  the 
books  of  Scripture,  as  they  are  read  in  the  Catholic 
(Romish)  church,  and  as  they  are  in  the  Vulgate  Latin 
edition,  shall  be  accursed.     (Errata,  p.  37.) 

"  How  little  the  orthodox  member  of  the  Romish 
church  is,  at  this  day,  to  expect  serious  consideration 
in  the  walks  of  serious  criticism,  may  be  inferred 
from  the  description  given  of  him  by  a  doctor  of  his 
own  communion.     ;  The  vulgar  papist  rests  his  fajth 


103 

on  the  supposed  infallibility  of  his  church,  although 
he  knows  not  where  that  infallibility  is  lodged,  nor  in 
what  it  properly  consists  :  it  is  to  him  a  general,  vague, 
indefinite  idea,  which  he  never  thinks  of  analysing. 
He  reads  in  his  catechism,  or  is  told  by  his  catechist, 
that  the  church  cannot  err  in  what  she  teaches:  and  then 
he  is  told,  that  this  unerring  church  is  composed  only 
of  those  who  hold  communion  with  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  and  precisely  believe  as  he,  and  the  Bishops 
who  are  in  communion  with  him,  believe.  From  that 
moment  reason  is  set  aside  ;  authority  usurps  its  place, 
and  implicit  faith  is  the  necessary  consequence.  He 
dares  not  even  advance  to  the  first  step  of  Des  Car- 
tes's  logic ;  he  dares  not  doubt :  for  in  his  table  of 
sins,  which  he  is  obliged  to  confess,  he  finds  doubting 
in  matters  of  faith  to  be  a  grievous  crime.'  Such  is 
Dr.  Geddes's  account  of  him  whom  he  is  pleased  to 
call  the  vulgar  papist ;  under  which  title  he  in  truth 
means  to  include,  all  who  are  sincere  votaries  of  the 
church  of  Rome,  and  whom  that  church  would  ac- 
knowledge as  such :  in  other  words,  he  means  by  this 
term  to  designate  all  who  are  actually  within  the 
pale  of  Popery. 

"  And  let  it  not  be  supposed  that  this  is  the  testi- 
mony of  an  enemy  in  the  disguise  of  a  friend  ;  and 
that  the  author,  whilst  he  assumed  the  name  of  Catho- 
lic, was  influenced  by  the  feelings  of  a  Protestant. 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  manifest  from  the  following  pas- 
sage that  his  mind  remained  under  the  powerful  in- 
fluence of  Romish  impression,  and  that  he  continued 
still  a  partisan  of  that  faith  whose  errors  he  affected 
to  decry.  '  For,'  says  he,  i  is  the  faith  of  the  vulgar 
Protestant  better  founded  ?     He  rests  it  on  a  book 


104 

called  the  Holy  Bible,  which  he  believes  to  be  the 
infallible  word  of  God.' — And  thus  he  pronounces  the 
faith  of  the  Protestant  and  of  the  Papist  to  be  alike 
implicit  and  alike  unfounded.  *  If  the  instructor  of 
the  Protestant  be  asked  how  he  knows  that  the  book 
which  he  puts  into  the  hand  of  his  catechumen  is  the 
infallible  word  of  God  ;  he  cannot,  like  the  priest,  ap- 
peal to  an  unerring  church  ;  he  acknowledges  no  such 
guide :  and  yet  it  is  hard  to  conceive  what  other  better  ar- 
gument he  can  use?  He  goes  on  even  to  pronounce, 
that  '  in  the  Popish  controversy,  the  Romanists  have, 
on  this  point,  the  better  side  of  the  question ;  called, 
by  some  of  their  controversialists,  the  question  of  ques- 
tions.'' And  in  what  way  does  their  superiority  ap- 
pear upon  this  question  of  questions  ?  By  4  its  never 
having  been  satisfactorily  solved  by  the  Romanists 
themselves  :  they  having  always  reasoned  in  what  is 
termed  a  vicious  circle;  proving  the  infallibility  of  the 
church  from  the  authority  of  Scripture,  and  the  authority 
of  Scripture  from  the  church' 's  infallibility.''  (Preface  to 
Critical  Remarks,  p.  5.)  This  must  undoubtedly  have 
given  the  Romanists  the  better  side  of  the  question  ;  for 
what  Protestant  logician  could  successfully  reply  to 
such  an  argument  ?  But  the  reader  must  be  wearied 
of  this  fatuity." 

Much  reasoning  is  expended,  to  no  purpose,  by  the 
Rev.  Gentleman  {Append,  p.  8C,)  in  proving  the  per- 
petual visibility  of  the  Christian  church.  Can  he  be 
ignorant,  or  does  he  wish  to  mislead  his  readers  with 
the  idea,  that  this  visibility  is  denied  by  Protestants  ? 
— No;  the  church,  they  contend,  has  been  always  vi- 
sible. Her  features,  indeed,  have  at  some  periods 
been  clouded  with  the  mists  of  error,  superstition, 


10fy 

and  folly ;  while   at  others  they  have  displayed,  (fa 
heavenly    effulgence,    all     the    beauty    of  holiness* 
'*  This  church,"  says  the  Rev.  Gentleman,   "  always 
discoverable"  &c.   (Append,  p.  89.)  "  cannot  cease  to  be 
the  true  church.''''     And  who  denies  it?     "Therefore, 
we  must  conclude,  at  the  same  time,  cannot  teach  er- 
rors contrary  to  faith.    Here  is  a  very  short  and  sim- 
ple reasoning,  but  which  terminates  at  once  all  con- 
troversies on  matters  of  religion ;  and,  until  it  be  an- 
swered, (which  will  never  be  done  with  any  success,) 
we  have  a  right  always  to  refuse,  if  we  please,  to  en- 
ter upon  the  discussion   of  any  particular  article." 
(Append,   ibid.)     He  then  concludes  :  "  The  church 
of  Christ  cannot  err  in  matters  of  faith,  therefore  all 
her  decisions  are  true,  all  her  doctrine  the  true  faith 
of  Christ;   therefore  confession  of  sins,  taught  by  the 
same  church,  to  have  been  instituted  by  Christ,  and  to 
be  necessary  to  salvation,  was,  indeed,  instituted  by 
Christ,  and  is  indeed  necessary  to  salvation."   (Ibidem.) 
Here  is  the  Sampson  of  all  the  Rev.  Gentleman's 
arguments,  bearing  him  in  triumph  through  every  dif- 
ficulty, and  scattering  all  opposition  like  dust  before  the 
wind  !    But  what  will  be  said  to  this  simple  position  ? 
Every  Christian  church,  and  the  Roman  among  the 
rest,  has  taught  erroneous  doctrines ;    therefore,  they 
can  teach  them:  "  ab  actu  ad  potentiam"  is  sound  logical 
reasoning.     In  the  foregoing  pages  this  has  been  pro- 
ved respecting  auricular  confession,  and  therefore,  in 
the  words  of  the  Rev.  Gentleman,  terminates  at  once 
all  controversy  respecting  the  infallibility  of  his  church. 
But,  it  is  said,  (ibidem,)  "  if  the  church  should  at  any 
time  teach   errors  contrary  to  faith,  she  would  cease 
from  that  instant  to  be  the  true  church."     Agreed— 

14 


106 

It  such  errors  subvert  the  foundations  of  the  Christian 
religion,  as  revealed  in  the  Scriptures.  Errors,  how- 
ever, of  this  description,  never  infected  the  whole  body 
of  the  church:  they  were  either  unknown  to  antiqui- 
ty, or,  when  beginning  to  appear,  were  reprobated, 
and  resisted.  This  might  readily  be  proved  of  every 
doctrine  which  Protestants  deem  erroneous ;  and 
when  at  length  the  profligate  abuses,  and  degrading 
tyranny  of  the  Roman  church  were  carried  to  excess- 
es no  longer  to  be  tolerated,  the  reformers  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  treading  in  the  footsteps  of  many 
illustrious  predecessors,  justified  their  separation,  not 
by  alleging  that  the  foundations  of  Christianity  were 
demolished,  but  that  so  much  hay  and  stubble  had  been 
heaped  upon  them,  as  to  render  further  communion 
with  a  church  which  refused  to  remove  them,  incom- 
patible with  Christian  sincerity  and  worship.  The 
great  mistake  of  the  Rev.  Gentleman,  consists  in  con- 
founding  the  Roman  with  the  Catholic  church,  in  ap- 
plying to  the  former  the  promises  meant  only  for  the 
latter.  Against  this  the  gates  of  hell  were  never  to 
prevail,  either  by  overturning  the  foundations  of  reli- 
gion, or  preventing  its  doctrines  being  preached  to  all 
nations.  As  long  as  the  church  of  Rome  taught  no- 
thing inconsistent  with  these  fundamental  doctrines, 
so  long  was  she  a  sound  member  of  the  Catholic 
church :  and  when,  in  latter  ages,  she  engrafted  upon 
Scriptural  doctrines  such  unwarrantable  innovations, 
as  occasioned  many  individuals  and  societies  to  secede 
from  her  communion,  she  continued  still  to  be  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Christian  church  ;  but  amalgamating  with 
the  doctrines  essential  to  salvation,  a  heterogeneous 
compound  of  scholastic  subtleties,  burthensome  ob- 


107 

servances,  and  superstitious  practices,  as  terms  of 
communion,  she  obscured  the  divine  simplicity  of  the 
gospel,  she  perplexed  the  consciences  of  Christians 
with  articles  which  the  ignorant  could  not  compre- 
hend, nor  the  learned  explain.  As  far  as  this  was  the 
case,  the  church  of  Rome  must  drop  her  plea  to  in- 
fallibility; and  that  it  has  frequently  been  the  case, 
and  is  so  at  this  day,  history,  and  the  known  articles 
of  her  faith,  sufficiently  testify.  But  as  far  as  she 
adopts,  in  common  with  the  Protestant  churches,  the 
same  profession  of  faith  as  expressed  in  the  apostles' 
creed,  and  the  fundamental  articles  of  religion  essen- 
tially connected  with  and  emanating  from  it,  so  far 
would  Protestants  be  disposed  to  cultivate  with  her 
a  unity  of  spirit  and  bond  of  peace,  and  excite  a  holy 
emulation  for  righteousness  of  life.  By  acknowledg- 
ing a  liability  to  error,  and  adhering  steadfastly  and 
exclusively  to  the  plain  and  obvious  doctrines  of  the 
gospel ;  Christian  morality,  practical  piety,  and  solid 
devotion,  would  attract  much  of  that  attention  which 
is  now  wasted  upon  points  of  minor  importance. 
"  We  have  constantly  seen,"  (says  Dr.  Milner,  Ch. 
Histor.  vol.  4,  p.  208,)  "  in  the  course  of  this  history, 
that  the  holiness  of  heart  and  life,  which  real  Chris- 
tians have  evidenced  from  age  to  age,  was  always 
connected  with  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Christianity. 
Sometimes  one  of  these  doctrines,  and  sometimes 
another,  constituted  the  prominent  feature  of  their 
profession ;  but  it  is  in  vain  to  look  for  men  of  real 
holiness  and  virtue,  who  were  inimical,  or  even  indif- 
ferent to  the  fundamentals  of  the  gospel." 

These    fundamental   doctrines    of    salvation    are 
clearly  and  explicitly  revealed  in  the  Bible,  which 


108 

speaks  a  language  full  as  intelligible  as  that  of  any 
Pope  or  council  can  be.  This  book  is  the  religion  of 
Protestants,  and  affords  the  greatest  security  that 
can  be  given  in  the  present  state  of  things.  It  is  the 
word  of  God  himself,  and  acknowledged  as  such  by 
all  Christian  churches.  Nay,  Roman  Catholics  them- 
selves consider  it,  on  some  occasions,  as  a  sufficient 
guide  to  truth ;  for  why  else  do  they  appeal  to  it  to 
prove  the  infallible  authority  of  their  church,  and  in- 
deed almost  every  other  tenet  of  their  faith  ?  Why 
does  the  Rev.  Gentleman  appeal  to  its  testimony  in 
favour  of  sacramental  confession  ?  And  have  not 
Protestants  an  equal  right  to  this  unerring  testimony 
upon  points  much  more  clearly  delivered  ?  An  atten- 
tive reader  of  the  New  Testament  will  hardly  be 
persuaded,  that  the  doctrines  of  transubstantiation,  of 
the  Pope's  supremacy,  of  auricular  confession,  or  of 
infallibility,  are  as  clearly  delivered  there,  as  are,  for 
instance,  the  precept  of  eating  bread  and  drinking 
wine,  in  commemoration  of  Christ's  death  and  passion, 
and  the  express  command  of  receiving  this  sacrament 
in  both  kinds  ?  He  will  hardly  be  persuaded  that 
the  metaphysical  subtleties  in  favour  of  infallibility 
can  counterbalance  the  arguments  against  certain 
doctrines,  which  set  all  our  senses  at  defiance,  and 
break  in  upon  the  most  secret  recesses  of  our  bosoms. 
In  a  word,  he  will  more  readily  acquiesce  in  the  posi- 
tion, that  the  same  body  cannot  exist  in  many  differ- 
ent places  at  the  same  time ;  that  the  sensible  acci- 
dents of  bodies  cannot  exist  without  their  appropri- 
ate substances ;  that  a  stupendous  miracle  is  not 
performed  at  the  celebration  of  every  mass :  than  in 


109 

the  evidence  for  infallibility  which  is  collected  from 
the  Scriptures. 

The  doctrine  of  a  tribunal  upon  earth,  which  can- 
not err  in  its  decisions,  appears  to  be  inconsistent 
with  our  nature,  as  rational  beings.  Were  it  possi- 
ble it  might,  indeed,  prevent  all  error;  because 
where  no  judgment  is  formed,  there  is  no  mistake. 
In  this  case,  however,  our  faculties  must  be  altered ; 
for  as  they  now  are,  no  infallible  teacher  could  de- 
stroy our  freedom  of  thought.  We  must  judge  at 
least  of  his  authority  to  teach  us,  and  whether  what 
he  teaches  be  conformable  to  reason.  This  is  the 
guide  which  must  finally  direct  us.  Whether  God 
himself  vouchsafe  to  speak  to  us,  or  manifest  his  will 
by  an  inspired  messenger,  we  must  still  be  determined 
by  our  reason  with  respect  to  what  he  requires  of  us 
to  do  or  to  believe:  so  true  it  is,  that  nothing  can  su- 
persede the  exercise  of  our  judgment;  although,  when 
once  convinced  that  God  has  spoken,  it  becomes  our 
duty  to  obey  without  hesitation  or  doubt. 

As  our  belief,  then,  must  arise  from  conviction,  the 
course  of  argument,  in  all  our  inquiries,  is  this:  "  It  is 
revealed,  therefore  we  must  believe  it,"  and  not,  "  The 
church  has  taught  it;  therefore  it  must  be  revealed." 
From  a  proper  appeal  to  sense  and  reason,  from  the 
motives  of  credibility,  we  first  convince  ourselves  that 
the  Scriptures  are  inspired  by  Almighty  God,  and 
consequently  possess  a  plenary  authority :  we  then  be- 
lieve the  doctrines  which  they  contain,  because  they 
are  revealed.  But  the  method  of  reasoning  adopted 
by  Roman  Catholics  moves  on  a  different  plan.  They 
admit,  with  other  Christians,  that  the  Scriptures  are 
revealed :  and  then  they  tell  us,  that  these  Scriptures 


110 

teach  the  infallibility  of  their  church.  In  proof  of 
this,  they  cite  a  few  obscure  and  controverted  passa- 
ges, the  most  forcible  of  which  are  so  very  inconclu- 
sive, that  unless  their  church  had  pronounced  them  to 
be  plain  and  obvious,  it  would  never  have  entered 
into  the  head  of  any  man  to  rest  so  important  a  doc- 
trine upon  such  questionable  evidence. 

Moreover,  if  men  could  be  certain  of  the  truth  of 
Christianity,  when  it  was  first  embraced,  without  any 
appeal  to  a  living,  infallible  judge,  they  can  surely  be 
equally  so  of  any  of  its  doctrines.  Whatever  is  evi- 
dent from  the  common  principles  of  reason,  is  suffi- 
ciently certain ;  to  be  infallibly  so,  is  not  necessary  to 
salvation.  The  mercies  of  God  will  be  extended  to 
the  infirmities  of  our  understanding,  as  well  as  to  those 
of  our  will.  To  be  scriptural  and  acceptable,  our 
faith  must  be  an  act  of  both;  and  therefore  its  evidence 
cannot  be  irresistible. 

Another  inconvenience  seems  also  to  flow  from  the 
doctrine  of  infallibility ;  which  is,  its  tendency  to  throw 
mankind  into  skepticism  and  infidelity.  For,  when  a 
person  has,  from  his  infancy,  been  taught  the  necessi- 
ty of  such  a  guide,  and  yet  is  unable,  from  argument 
or  Scripture,  to  persuade  himself  of  its  existence; 
this  unhappy  conflict  naturally  inclines  him  to  univer- 
sal doubt.  It  creates  an  indifference  to  all  religion, 
and  leads  him  to  ascribe  every  religious  system  on 
earth,  rather  to  human  policy,  than  to  any  revelation 
from  above.  When  taught  to  believe  that  the  doc- 
trines of  auricular  confession,  of  the  invocation  of 
saints,  transubstantiation,  &c.  rest  on  the  same  autho- 
rity as  the  divinity  of  Christ,  as  the  fall  of  man,  and 
his  recovery  through  a  Redeemer,  he  discards  at  once 


Ill 

the  whole  motley  system,  without  allowing  himself  to 
examine  the  respective  claims  of  these  doctrines  to 
his  assent,  or  investigating  the  authority  which  sanc- 
tions them  all  alike.  To  affirm,  therefore,  that  the 
evidences  in  favour  of  several  discriminating  doctrines 
of  the  Roman  church,  are  of  equal  weight  with  those, 
which  are  offered  for  the  truth  of  Christianity  itself, 
is  an  assertion  deserving  the  severest  censure,  and  in- 
volving consequences  destructive  both  to  morals  and 
faith. 

The  pretence  of  tracing  up  the  Roman  church  to 
the  times  of  the  apostles,  is  grounded  on  mere  sophis- 
try, which  it  is  not  the  business  of  this  reply  to  ex- 
amine. The  succession  which  Roman  Catholics  thus 
unfairly  ascribe  to  their  church,  belongs  to  every 
other,  and  exclusively  to  none.  But  that  portion  of 
the  Christian  church  is  surely  best  entitled  to  this 
claim,  which  teaches,  in  the  greatest  purity,  the  doc- 
trines of  the  apostles.  The  Roman  church  affirms, 
that  she  has  succeeded  to  the  apostles,  and,  therefore, 
is  infallible.  Protestants  show  that  many  of  her  doc- 
trines are  unscriptural  and  novel,  and  that,  therefore, 
she  is  not  so.  Let  any  candid  person  pronounce, 
which  of  these  two  arguments  is  fairest  and  most  con- 
clusive. "  They  have  not  the  inheritance  of  Peter," 
(says  St.  Ambrose,  lib.  1 ,  de  panJ)  "  who  have  not  Pe- 
ter's faith." 

If  it  be  urged,  that  without  an  infallible  guide  there 
can  be  no  unity  in  faith,  nothing  but  universal  anar- 
chy and  confusion,  let  its  advocates  show,  that  this 
tenet  has  always  prevented  heresy  and  schism :  let 
them  show,  that  fewer  dissentions  have  arisen  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Roman  church  than  among  the  adherent* 


112 

to  the  Westminster  confession  of  faith,  or  to  the  arti- 
cles  of  the  English  church.  It  will  be  found,  that 
since  the  first  ebullitions  of  intemperate  zeal,  which 
took  place  at  the  period  of  the  reformation,  occasion- 
ed by  the  natural  incapacity  of  the  human  mind  to 
bear  the  sudden  effulgence  of  truth  after  a  long  se- 
ries of  tyranny  and  delusion,  have  settled  down  into 
regular  systems  of  faith,  and  bodies  of  discipline  in 
the  Protestant  churches,  fewer  instances  have  occur- 
red among  them  of  destructive  heresies,  and  desolat- 
ing contentions,  than  during  an  equal  period  of  time 
disturbed  the  peace  of  Christendom. 

We  may  observe  further,  that  the  boasted  uniformi- 
ty of  the  Roman  church  is  a  mere  fiction,  amounting 
in  fact  to  nothing  more  than  this,  that  all  who  believe 
as  she  does,  are  of  her  religion :  for  when  any  persons 
are  pointed  out,  however  virtuous  and  learned,  who 
have  at  any  time  dissented  from  her  doctrines,  the  an- 
swer is,  that  such  persons  could  not  be  deemed  Ro- 
man Catholics.  This  is  a  palpable  evasion  :  as  no  one 
ever  doubted,  but  that  when  she  has  excommunicated 
all  who  dissent  from  her  decrees,  those  who  remain 
in  her  communion  must  be  of  her  religion. 

The  disagreements  among  Protestant  communities 
are  neither  very  numerous  nor  very  important,  nor  do 
they  spring  from  any  want  of  an  infallible  guide.  It 
is  neither  the  obscurity  of  the  written  law  that  di- 
vides them,  nor  the  infallibility  of  their  church,  which 
keeps  Roman  Catholics  united.  This  pretended  unity 
arises  chiefly  from  the  rigorous  strength  of  her  exter- 
nal policy :  and  however  the  sentiments  of  her  adhe- 
rents may  differ,  as  they  frequently  do,  yet  they  con- 
tinue to  hold  the  same  language,  because  they  dare 


113 

not  hold  any  other.  Not  only  an  expression,  but  a 
voluntary  doubt,  incurs  the  severest  penalties  of  their 
church.  An  apparent  uniformity  of  worship  and  lan- 
guage, upheld  by  measures  thus  violent,  is  much 
more  calculated  to  make  men  hypocrites,  than  to  ce- 
ment them  together,  either  in  the  bonds  of  the  same 
sincere  belief,  or  of  cordial  affection  and  reciprocal 
kindness.  It  is  the  fear  of  being  considered  as  here- 
tics and  unbelievers,  the  severity  of  church  discipline, 
the  ignorance  in  which  Roman  Catholics  are  educated 
with  respect  to  the  doctrines  of  Protestants,  and  the 
motives  of  their  dissent;  but  above  all,  it  is  the  cer- 
tainty, in  case  they  abandon  their  communion,  of  ne- 
ver being  cordially  forgiven  by  those  with  whom  they 
were  most  intimately  connected,  by  the  ties  both  of 
nature  and  friendship,  which  detains  many  in 
their  church,  rather  than  any  sincere  and  rational 
conviction  of  the  superiority  of  their  belief  to  that  of 
their  neighbours. 

The  reader  will  probably  be  now  induced  to  ac- 
knowledge, that  slender  indeed  are  the  pretensions 
to  infallibility,  on  which  the  Rev.  Gentleman  builds 
the  sacrament  of  auricular  confession,  and  that  he 
would  have  acted  more  prudently  by  confining  him- 
self entirely  to  the  Scriptures;  but  the  few  equivocal 
and  doubtful  passages  which  he  discovers  there  would 
not  have  answered  his  purpose.  An  overwhelming 
authority  was  necessary  to  establish  a  point,  which 
seems  an  outrage  to  the  sense  and  independence  of 
man.  But  neither  is  such  authority  as  we  have  seen, 
nor  an  obligation  to  resort  to  it,  to  be  found  in  the 
oracles  of  God.  These  alone,  independently  of  the 
interpretations    of  fallible    men,   constitute  the  rule 

15 


114 

and  limits  of  a  Christian's  belief.  "  Whatsoever 
things  were  written  aforetime,  were  written  for  our 
learning,  for  our  instruction."  {Rom.  xv.  4.)  "  All 
Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profit- 
able for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  in- 
struction in  righteousness."  (2  Tim.  iii.  16.)  "Search 
the  Scriptures,  for  in  them  ye  think,  ye  have  eternal 
life." 

On  this  solid  ground  the  Protestant  plants  the 
standard  of  his  faith.  This  is  his  rallying  point  amidst 
the  contentions  of  theologians,  the  bulls  of  popes,  and 
the  decrees  of  councils,  which  have  so  frequently  ob- 
scured, so  seldom  elucidated  the  doctrines  of  the  gos- 
pel. A  few  passages  from  the  ancient  fathers  will 
show  what  was  their  opinion  on  the  subject,  and  if 
some  of  a  contrary  tendency  should  be  alleged,  it  will 
only  prove  that  their  notions  of  a  rule  of  faith  were 
very  vague  and  unsettled,  and  by  no  means  in  unison 
with  those  who  conceive  that  in  tradition  and  the 
church,  they  possess  an  additional  rule  to  that  held 
forth  in  the  Scriptures. 

The  opinions  of  some  of  the  ancient  fathers  concerning 
Scripture,  as  a  rule  of  faith. 

"  The  apostles  preached  the  gospel,  but  afterwards 
delivered  it  to  us  in  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  founda- 
tion and  pillar  of  our  faith." — St.  Irenozus  adv.  hcereses, 
lib.  iii.  cap.  I. 

"  I  do  not  follow  men,  or  human  doctrines,  but  I 
follow  God,  and  what  he  taught." — Justinus  Martyr 
in  collo.  cum  Trypone. 

"  The  holy  and  divinely  inspired  Scriptures  suffice 


115 

for  our  instruction  in  all  truth." — St.  Athan.  contra 
Getites. 

"  Cannot  God  speak  distinctly,  who  created  our  un- 
derstanding, our  voice,  and  our  tongue?  Yes,  his  di- 
vine Providence  chose  that  divine  things  should  be 
void  of  obscurity,  that  all  might  understand  those 
things  which  he  spoke  to  all  men." — Lactantius  lib. 
Institu.  6.  cap.  21. 

"For  as  the  holy  evangelist  himself  testifies,  our 
Lord  said  and  did  many  things  which  are  not  written; 
but  those  things  were  selected  to  be  written,  which 
appeared  sufficient  for  the  salvation  of  the  faithful." 
— St.  Augustinus  super  Joan.  cap.  11.  tract.  49. 

"  What  more  shall  I  teach  you,  than  what  we  read 
in  the  apostle  ?  for  the  holy  Scripture  fixes  the  rule  of 
our  doctrine,  lest  we  presume  to  be  wise  beyond  what 
is  proper." — Idem  de  bono  viduitatis  cap.  I . 

"  Those  things  which  the  Scripture  plainly  con- 
tains, it  speaks  without  disguise,  like  a  familiar  friend, 
to  the  heart  of  the  learned  and  unlearned." — Idem 
Epist.  3. 

"  Among  those  things  which  are  plainly  set  down  in 
Scripture,  all  those  things  are  to  be  found,  which  com- 
prehend faith  and  good  morals,  viz.  hope  and  chari- 
ty."— Idem  de  doct.  Christ.  I.  2.  cap.  9. 

Rem.  Can  any  reasonable  man  imagine,  that  St. 
Augus'ine  would  have  spoken  in  this  manner  if  it  had 
been  an  article  of  his  faith,  that  Scripture  is  not  a  suffi- 
cient rule  of  our  belief? 

"  All  things  which  our  Lord  did  are  not  written, 
but  only  what  the  writers  thought  sufficient  for  our 
morals  and  faith." — St.  Cyrill.  lib.  12,  in  Joan. 

"Without  the  authority  of  the  holy  Scriptures,  lo- 


116 

quacity  has  no   credit." — St.   Hieronymus  in  Tit  tuff 
cap.  I. 

"The  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  that  which  is 
delivered  in  the  canonical  books,  against  which,  if  the 
councils  should  make  any  decree,  I  deem  it  impious." 
— Idem  in  Gallatas. 

"  Whatever  has  no  authority  from  the  Scriptures, 
is  despised  as  easily  as  it  is  alleged." — Idem  in  23  cap. 
Math. 

"  Let  us  not  hear  any  more  of  these  expressions,  / 
say  so  and  so,  and  you  say  so  and  so ,  but  rather  thus  says 
our  Lord.  We  have  his  books,  which  both  of  us  pro- 
fess to  believe  :  there  let  us  seek  for  the  church, 
there  let  us  discuss  our  pretensions.  Again ;  Let 
every  argument  be  suppressed,  which  we  allege 
against  each  other,  if  it  be  drawn  from  any  source 
but  the  canonical  books.  Perhaps  somebody  will 
ask,  why  do  you  wish  such  arguments  to  be  suppress- 
ed ?  Because  I  am  unwilling  that  the  holy  church 
should  be  demonstrated  by  human  documents,  but  by 
the  divine  oracles.  Wherefore,  in  the  holy  canoni- 
cal Scriptures,  let  us  seek  for  the  church.  (Ct.  cap.  6.) 
Read  us  this  from  the  psalms,  from  the  law,  from  the 
prophets,  from  the  gospel,  read  it  from  the  epistles 
of  the  apostles,  and  then  let  us  believe  it.  Jlgain, 
(cap.  16.)  Let  them  demonstrate  their  church  if  they 
can  ;  not  in  the  discourses  and  reports  of  the  Afri- 
cans, not  in  the  councils  of  their  bishops,  not  in  the 
letters  of  obscure  disputants,  not  in  fallacious  signs 
and  prodigies,  against  which  we  are  warned  and 
prepared  by  the  word  of  our  Lord  :  but  in  the  code 
of  the  law,  in  the  predictions  of  the  prophets,  in  the 
songs  of  the  psalms,  in  the   words  of  the  Shepherd 


117 

himself,  in  the  preaching  and  labours  of  the  evange- 
lists, that  is,  in  all  the  canonical  authorities  of  the 
holy  books.  Again :  Let  him  not  say  this  is  true,  be- 
cause this  or  that  person  has  wrought  such  and  such 
miracles,  or  because  some  are  heard  who  pray  at 
the  monuments  (ad  memorias)  of  the  martyrs,  or  be- 
cause such  and  such  things  happen  there,  or  because 
he  or  she  has  seen  such  a  vision  whilst  awake,  or 
dreamed  of  it  whilst  asleep.  Away  with  these  fic- 
tions of  lying  men  or  prodigies  of  deceitful  spirits  ! 
And  {cap.  20.)  Insist  on  their  showing  you  some 
manifest  testimonies  from  the  canonical  books.  Re- 
member that  it  is  the  saying  of  our  Lord,  they  have 
Moses  and  the  prophets.'''' — St.  Aug.  de  unitate  Ecclce. 
cap.  3. 

Rem.  What  unprejudiced  man  can  read  these  pas- 
sages, and  yet  continue  to  believe  that  St.  Augustine 
maintained,  as  Roman  Catholics  now  do,  that  besides 
the  Scriptures,  there  is  another  rule  and  ground  of 
faith,  of  equal  authority  with  them ;  viz.  unwritten 
tradition?  Where  would  a  man  have  found  in  any 
part  of  the  Scripture,  that  the  church  of  Rome  is 
the  mother  and  mistress  of  all  churches,  out  of  which  no 
salvation  can  be  obtained ;  or  that  the  Pope  is  by  di- 
vine right  the  visible  head  of  the  Christian  church, 
&c.  &c.  &c. 

"If  God  be  faithful  in  all  his  sayings,  and  all  his 
commandments  be  righteous,  it  is  a  manifest  aposta- 
cy  from  faith,  and  sin  of  pride,  either  to  reject  any 
of  those  things  that  are  written,  or  to  introduce  any 
thing  that  is  not  written." — St.  Basil,  in  serm.  de  conf. 
fidei. 

"  Wherefore,  let  the  divinely  inspired  Scripture  foe 


11B 

appointed  our  umpire  ;  and  let  those  be  allowed  to 
profess  the  truth,  whose  doctrines  shall  be  found 
agreeing  with  the  Scriptures ;  (sermonibus  divinis.") 
•—Idem.  Epist.  80. 

"  If  any  thing  is  alleged  without  the  authority  of 
Scripture,  then  the  minds  of  the  audience  halt.  But 
when  the  testimony  of  the  divine  word  is  produced 
from  the  Scripture,  it  confirms  the  discourse  of  the 
speaker  and  the  mind  of  the  hearer." — St.  Chrys.  in 
Psal.  95. 

"  Let  us  not  attend  to  the  opinions  of  the  many, 
but  let  us  inquire  into  the  things  themselves.  For  it  is 
absurd,  while  we  will  not  trust  other  people  in  pecu- 
niary matters,  but  choose  to  count  and  calculate  our 
money  ourselves,  that  in  affairs  of  much  greater  con- 
sequence we  should  implicitly  follow  the  opinions  of 
others ;  especially  as  we  are  possessed  of  the  most  ex- 
act and  perfect  rule  and  measure,  by  which  we  may 
square  and  regulate  our  inquiries,  viz.  the  regula- 
tions of  the  divine  laws.  Wherefore,  I  could  wish 
that  all  of  you  would  abandon  what  this  or  that  man 
asserts  for  truth,  and  that  you  would  investigate  all 
these  things  in  the  Scriptures." — Idem  in  2  ad.  Co- 
rinth, horn.  13. 

Rem.  How  a  learned  and  holy  doctor  could  write 
this  passage,  and  yet  regard  the  doctrine  of  private 
judgment  as  heretical,  is  a  paradox  which,  I  fancy,  can 
never  be  cleared  up. 

"  It  is  right  that  you  should  rest  satisfied  with 
those  things  only  that  are  written  ;  and,  {lib.  7,)  no 
other  discourse  is  left  for  the  treatises  of  men  upon 
divine  subjects,  except  the  word  of  God." — St.  Hila- 
rius,  lib.  3.  de  Trinitate. 


119 

"  We  stand  in  need  of  no  curiosity  since  Jesus 
Christ,  nor  of  any  inquiry  since  the  gospel." — Ter~ 
full.  lib.  de  proscrip.  Hceret. 

"  We  receive,  acknowledge,  and  venerate  all  things 
delivered  down  to  us  by  the  law,  the  prophets,  the 
apostles,  and  the  evangelists,  but  besides  these  we 
seek  for  nothing  else." — St.  Joan.  Damas.  dejide  Ortho. 
I.  1.  c.  1. 

"  The  holy  Scripture  surpasses  all  science  and 
doctrine.  It  is  not  therefore  shut  up,  that  it  may 
frighten  us,  nor  open,  that  it  may  become  contempti- 
ble; but  the  tediousness  of  it  goes  off  by  use,  and  the 
more  it  is  meditated  upon,  the  more  it  is  beloved." — ■ 
St.  Greg,  in  Moral. 

"  What  is  there,  either  deficient  or  obscure  ?  In 
the  word  of  God  all  things  are  full  and  perfect,  as 
coming  from  a  full  and  perfect  being." — St.  Hilarius9 
lib.  2.  de  Trinitate. 

"  All  things  are  clear  and  perspicuous,  and  no- 
thing contradictory  is  to  be  found  in  the  Scripture." — 
St.  Epiph.  contra  JYoetianos  hores.  57. 

"The  Scripture  expounds  itself,  and  does  not  suffer 
the  reader  to  err." — St.  Chrysos.  horn.  12,  in  Genesim. 

"  Nor  is  it  proper  to  assert  any  thing  without  wit- 
nesses, or  from  fancy  only.  For  when  any  affirma- 
tion is  not  drawn  from  Scripture,  the  mind  is  in  sus- 
pense, now  it  assents,  the  next  moment  it  is  dubious, 
now  it  rejects  the  frivolous  assertion,  and  now  again 
admits  it  as  probable.  But  when  the  testimony  of  the 
divine  word  is  produced  from  the  Scriptures,  it  fixes 
both  the  discourse  of  the  speaker,  and  the  mind  of  the 
hearer." — Idem  in  Psalm  95. 

"Whence  have  you  that  tradition ?  comes  it  from 


120 

the  authority  of  the  Lord,  and  the  gospel,  or  from  the 
epistles  of  the  apostles  ?  for  God  testifies  that  we  are 
to  do  those  things  that  are  written,  &c.  If  it  be  com- 
manded in  the  gospel,  or  contained  in  the  epistles  or 
acts  of  the  apostles,  then  let  us  observe  it  as  a  divine 
and  holy  tradition." — St.  Cyprianus,  Epist.  74. 

Rem.  This  passage  and  some  others  of  St.  Cyprian 
are  so  very  explicit,  that  Mr.  Rushworth,  a  Roman 
Catholic  controvertist  of  the  last  century,  is  compelled 
to  acknowledge,  that  this  father  seems  to  think  that  the 
resolution  of  faith  was  to  be  made  into  Scripture^  and  not 
into  tradition.     (Dial.  3.  sect.  13.) 

44  Of  those  things  that  are  in  use  among  us,  relating 
either  to  doctrine  or  practice,  some  are  expressly  de- 
livered in  the  Scriptures,  and  others  omitted.  What 
are  written  must  by  no  means  be  overlooked,  but  as 
to  what  are  omitted,  we  have  a  rule  delivered  to  us 
by  St.  Paul :  All  things  are  lawful  for  me,  but  all  things 
are  not  expedient." — St.  Basil  in  reg.  brevior.  1 . 

Such  being  the  notions  of  some  of  the  most  eminent 
among  the  primitive  fathers,  we  cannot  wonder  at 
their  zeal  and  eagerness  in  exhorting  all  Christians,  of 
every  sex  and  condition,  to  the  unremitting  reading 
and  study  of  the  Scriptures.  Every  reader,  who  is 
the  least  conversant  in  their  writings,  must  be  con- 
vinced of  this  fact.  How  different  was  the  conduct 
of  Christian  teachers  in  the  succeeding  ages  ?  Du- 
ring the  middle  centuries,  those  lamentable  eras  of 
astonishing  ignorance,  few  of  the  laity  being  able  to 
read  at  all,  the  greater  part  were  of  consequence  to- 
tally excluded  from  the  benefits  arising  from  the  medi- 
tation of  the  holy  Scriptures,  and  the  others  were 
taught  that  the  divine  writings  were  not  composed  for 


121 

the  use  of  the  multitude,  and  that  therefore  they  ought 
not  to  be  permitted  to  read  them.  And  as  for  the  ex- 
planations with  which  their  teachers  favoured  them, 
they  were  such  as  could  contribute  very  little  to  their 
knowledge  or  improvement.  Let  any  reasonable 
person  peruse  the  commentators  of  the  Roman  Catho- 
lic church  even  down  to  the  seventeenth  century,  and 
let  him  candidly  assert  what  benefit  or  information  he 
derived,  in  general,  from  such  a  perusal.  Will  he  not 
acknowledge,  that  instead  of  the  plain,  obvious,  genu- 
ine and  literal  sense  of  the  Scriptures,  he  was  chiefly 
amused  with  strained  interpretations,  with  allegorical, 
tropological  and  analogical  significations,  which  super- 
stition and  ignorance  first  invented,  and  then  made 
sacred? 

Before  we  dismiss  this  subject,  and  take  a  final 
leave  of  the  Rev.  Gentleman  and  the  Catholic  Ques- 
tion together,  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  notice  the  pass- 
port, which  has  been  adopted  to  recommend  it  to  the 
notice  and  patronage  of  the  public.  By  a  long  and 
tremendous  catalogue  of  penal  laws  enacted  against 
the  Roman  Catholics  of  England  and  Ireland,  the  pre- 
sent hostile  antipathies  of  the  country  were  to  be 
kindled  into  a  fiercer  flame  ;  public  compassion  was  to 
be  excited  for  a  persecuted  sect,  and  its  doctrines  thus 
sheltered  under  the  mantle  of  pity,  and  recommended 
by  the  horrors  of  oppression,  were  to  experience  a 
more  ready  and  indulgent  reception.  It  was  calcula- 
ted that  the  minds  of  Protestants,  softened  by  these 
enormities,  would  be  better  disposed  to  receive  the 
impressions  which  the  bold  display  of  unfounded  doc- 
trines in  the  Appendix  was  intended  to  make.  But 
slender,  indeed,  must  be  the  information  of  those,  who 

16 


122 

can  be  imposed  upon  by  such  an  artifice.  Can  the 
Rev.  Gentleman  or  his  learned  counsellors  be  igno- 
rant, or  presume  that  any  intelligent  reader  is  igno- 
rant of  the  history  of  these  statutes,  and  the  policy 
which  enacted  them?  Are  they  unacquainted  with 
the  bulls  of  popes  and  decrees  of  councils,  which  pro- 
voked them?  Will  they  contend,  that  when  they 
were  made,  a  Protestant  state  or  church  could  have 
subsisted  without  them  ?  At  present,  indeed,  the 
thunders  of  the- Vatican  are  a  mere  brutum  fulmen,  a 
telum  imbelle  sine  idu.  But  they  were  not  always  so, 
and  the  co-existing  spirit  of  the  times  must  be  taken 
into  the  account,  when  we  would  determine  respect- 
ing these  laws. 

Having  thrown  off  the  papal  yoke,  and  embraced 
the  doctrines  of  the  reformation,  it  was  incumbent  up- 
on the  British  parliament  to  protect  the  independence 
of  the  nation  against  all  the  intrigues  and  attacks  of 
the  adherents  and  emissaries  of  Rome.  Now,  how 
could  this  be  done  but  by  penal  statutes  ?  The  doc- 
trine of  religious  persecution,  previously  to  the  re- 
formation, had  been  so  unquestionably  the  doctrine 
of  the  Romish  church,  that  for  some  ages,  we  do  not 
meet  with  a  divine  of  any  eminence,  except  Thomas 
Aquinas,  who  was  not  a  zealous  advocate  for  it. 
Neither  has  this  antichristian  tenet  to  this  day  been 
renounced  by  the  see  of  Rome.  The  celebrated  Bos- 
suet  says  expressly,  "  that  heretics  and  schismatics 
are  no  where  excepted  out  of  the  number  of  those  evil 
doers,  against  whom,  St.  Peter  tells  us,  God  has  arm- 
ed Christian  princes."  (1  Pet.  ii.  14.)  And  in  ano- 
ther place,  writing  against  Jurieu,  he  places  the  advo- 
cates for  religious  toleration  on  the  list  of  heretics. 


123 

The  bull  of  pope  Pius  V.  published  in  1569,  against 
queen  Elizabeth,  entitled  "  The  declaratory  sentence 
of  the  most  holy  lord  Pius  V.  against  Elizabeth,  the 
pretended  queen  of  England,  and  the  heretics  adhering 
to  her"  and  that  of  pope  Sixtus  V.  in  1587,  by  which 
he  bestows  her  kingdoms  on  the  first  that  should 
seize  them,  were  surely  sufficient  to  rouse  the  British 
parliament,  to  enact  and  execute  the  severest  statutes 
to  obviate  their  baneful  influence  upon  the  peace  of 
the  nation.  What  will  be  said  of  the  bull  of  Gregory 
XIII.  May  13,  1580,  which  is  directed  "To  all  and 
singular  archbishops  and  other  prelates,  princes,  &c. 
and  people  of  the  kingdom  of  Ireland,"  and  grants  to 
all  the  Irish  who  would  join  the  rebellion  of  the  Fitz- 
geralds  of  Desmond,  and  fight  against  queen  Eliza- 
beth, the  same  plenary  pardon  and  remission  of  all 
their  sins,  which  is  granted  to  those  engaged  in  a  holy 
war  against  the  Turks  ?  What  of  that  published  by 
Clement  VIII.  in  1600,  exhorting  the  Irish  nation  to 
join  unanimously  in  Tir  Owen's  rebellion  against  the 
said  heretical  queen  ;  and  followed  in  a  few  months 
after  by  an  exhortatory  letter  to  Tir  Owen  himself? 
And  when  the  famous  universities  of  Salamanca  and 
Valladolid,  were  consulted  on  this  point  by  the  Irish 
Roman  Catholics,  they  justify  the  conduct  of  Tir 
Owen,  O'Neal,  and  their  associates,  in  taking  up  arms 
against  the  queen  ;  and  condemn,  as  guilty  of  mortal 
sin,  all  the  other  Irish  Catholics,  that  obeyed  the 
queen,  and  fought  in  her  defence.  {Vide  O^  Sullivan 
Beares.  Hist.  Cath.  Iber.  compcnd.) 

In  1626,  pope  Urban  VIII.  published  .a  brief,  ex- 
horting the  English  Catholics  to  lose  their  lives  rather 
than  be  drawn  to  take  that  noxious  and  unlawful  oath 


124 

of  English  fidelity,  (condemned  as  such  by  his  prede- 
cessor of  happy  memory,)  the  object  of  which  is, 
"not  only  that  their  faith  to  the  king  should  be*  se- 
cured, but  that  the  sacred  sceptre  of  the  universal 
church  should  be  wrested  from  the  vicars  of  Almigh- 
ty God."  And  again,  the  same  pontiff,  in  the  year 
J  6 13,  granted  a  bull  or  brief  of  "  plenary  indulgence 
to  all  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Ireland,  who  joined  in 
the  rebellion  and  horrid  massacre  of  1641."  Now 
were  not  these  unblushing  usurpations  of  the  Roman 
see,  and  the  treasonable  enormities  which  they  encou- 
raged and  rewarded,  to  be  encountered  with  rigorous 
laws  and  penalties  by  a  Protestant  government  ? 

They  who  are  acquainted  with  the  perfidious  ma- 
chinations of  king  James  II.  to  overturn  the  esta- 
blished religion  of  his  country,  in  defiance  of  the  most 
solemn  promises  and  oaths ;  with  the  religious  fer- 
ment which  his  persevering  bigotry  had  excited  in 
the  nation,  and  was  prepared  to  avail  itself  of  the  first 
opportunity  to  burst  out  into  open  rebellion,  will  not 
be  surprised  that  very  severe  statutes  were  deemed 
necessary  to  curb  the  zeal  of  fiery  bigots,  during  the 
reigns  of  his  immediate  successors.* 

Men  of  a  truly  Christian  spirit,  have  ever  lamented 
the  melancholy  necessity  which  gave  birth  to  the  pe- 
nal laws  in  England  and  Ireland,  and  had  the 
churches  of  England  or  Scotland  countenanced  or 
exercised  persecution  for  harmless  and  speculative 
opinions,  which  could  have  no  bearing  on  the  peace 
and  stability  of  the  government,  there  would  be  no 

*  If  the  reader  wishes  for  full  and  satisfactory  information  on  this  subject, 
.he  will  find  it  in  an  admirable  speech  of  the  earl  of  Clare,  lord  high  chancel- 
lor of  Ireland,  delivered  in  the  Irish  house  of  peers,  March  13,  1793. 


125 

hesitation  in  pronouncing  them  guilty  of  a  manifest 
departure  from  the  benevolent  maxims  and  precepts 
of  the  gospel.  Let  Roman  Catholics  show  that  they 
have  done  so,  and  Protestants  will  acknowledge  to 
have  been  themselves  guilty  of  a  grievous  error  in 
point  of  morality;  and  by  this  concession,  they  would 
act  with  a  consistency  unknown  to  those  who  have 
violated  the  most  sacred  laws  of  humanity  and  reli- 
gion, by  solemnly,  and  upon  principle,  shedding  tor- 
rents of  blood,  for  no  other  crime  than  maintaining 
the  sacred  rights  of  conscience,  and  doctrines  totally 
unconnected  with  the  state.  These  unchristian  atro- 
cities cannot  be  questioned,  and  yet  the  church,  which 
for  ages  enforced  and  sanctified  them,  pretends  to  be 
an  infallible  guide,  in  morals  as  well  as  in  faith,  to 
the  kingdom  of  the  meek  and  compassionate  Saviour 
of  the  world. 

Mr.  Berington,  a  sensible  advocate  of  the  Roman 
church,  when  apologizing  for  the  laws  enacted  against 
the  Hugonots  in  France,  since  the  revocation  of  the 
edict  of  Nantes,  acknowledges  that  they  are  "  extreme- 
ly severe."  "  But  it  must  be  allowed,"  says  he,  "  that 
they  were  a  dangerous  and  powerful  party,  from  whom 
the  religion,  if  not  the  civil  constitution  of  France,  had 
every  thing  to  apprehend."  {Reflec.  p.  92.)  How  ap- 
plicable this  reflection  to  the  subject  before  us !  For 
it  is  evident  that  the  penal  laws  against  Roman  Ca- 
tholics originated  principally  from  apprehensions,  not 
of  a  religious,  but  of  a  political  nature ;  if  ever  they 
did  not,  no  pretence  can  justify  them.  Let  the  fact, 
however,  be  briefly  examined.  The  act  of  supremacy 
(1st  Eliz.)  was  framed  "for  putting  away  all  usurp- 
ed and  foreign  powers  and  authorities ;  and  for  dis- 


126 

burthening  subjects  of  divers  great  and  intolerable 
charges  and  exactions,"  viz.  the  payment  of  annates 
or  first  fruits,  Pope's  bulls,  indulgences,  dispensations, 
&c.  the  amount  of  which  was  incredible.  The  next 
penal  law  against  popish  recusants,  was  5th  Eliz.  cap. 
1.  "because  of  the  dangers  by  the  fautors  of  the 
usurped  power  of  the  see  of  Rome,  at  this  time  grown 
to  marvellous  outrage  and  licentious  boldness,  and 
now  requiring  more  sharp  restraint  and  correction  of 
laws  than  hitherto,"  &c.  This  was  followed  by  a 
third,  (13th  Eliz.  cap.  11.)  "  because  divers  seditious 
and  evil  disposed  people  were  minding,  very  fasti- 
diously and  unnaturally,  not  only  to  bring  this  realm 
into  thraldom  and  subjection  to  the  see  of  Rome,  but 
also  to  estrange  and  alienate  the  minds  and  hearts  of 
her  majesty's  subjects  from  their  dutiful  obedience, 
and  to  raise  and  stir  up  sedition  and  rebellion  within 
this  realm,  to  the  disturbance  of  the  most  happy  peace 
thereof."  And  in  like  manner,  the  succeeding  re- 
straints and  penalties  of  her  reign,  and  the  same  may 
be  said  of  her  successors,  were  levelled,  not  against 
the  heretic  or  schismatic,  but  against  the  conspirator 
and  the  traitor;  so  that  when  some  convicted  priests 
and  their  pupils  would  have  assumed  the  glory  of 
suffering  for  their  religion,  Cecil,  the  most  wise  and 
honest  statesman  of  that  reign,  published  a  tract,  pro- 
ving that  their  execution  was  not  for  religion,  but  for 
treason  only.*     It  cannot,   however,  be  denied,  that 

*  The  reader  will  find  this  whole  subject  discussed  with  the  utmost  candour, 
and  illustrated  by  original  and  unquestionable  documents,  in  "  A  survey  of^he 
modern  state  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  &c."  addressed  to  the  Rev.  Dr.  Butler, 
&c.  by  William  Hales,  D.  D.  rector  of  Killesandra,  and  late  fellow  of  Tri  li- 
ty  College.  Dublin.  Among  other  important  matters,  the  reader  will  seethft* 
there  was  no  violation  of  the  famous  treaty  of  Limerick. 


127 

Elizabeth,  to  great  and  shining  talents,  united  some 
portion  of  her  father's  arbitrary  and  persecuting  spi- 
rit, and  that  a  few  of  her  subjects  were  put  to  death 
on  account  of  their  religious  opinions ;  but  among 
them  were  no  Roman  Catholics.  The  conviction  of 
these  was  grounded  only  upon  treasonable  practices, 
and  pardon  was  afterwards  offered  to  them  all,  pro- 
vided they  would  give  the  government  reasonable  se- 
curity for  their  allegiance,  by  disclaiming  the  foreign 
and  hostile  jurisdiction  of  the  see  of  Rome,  which,  in 
those  days,  held  out  very  different  pretensions  from 
the  mitigated  claims  of  the  present  times.  Of  these, 
however,  we  may  still  observe,  that  although  they 
have  received  the  sanction  of  so  many  Roman  Catho- 
lic universities,  yet  have  they  never  been  confirmed 
by  the  present  pontiff  or  his  predecessor;  and  should 
their  successors  ever  recover  the  former  influence 
of  the  Roman  Church,  there  can  be  little  doubt,  judg- 
ing from  past  events  and  pretensions,  but  the  liberal 
concessions  of  the  present  day  will  be  stigmatized  with 
her  disapprobation  and  severest  censures.* 

But  the  period  of  her  despotism  is,  we  trust,  gone  by 
forever.     Little  more  than  a  shadow  is  left  of  this  do- 


*  That  the  reader  may  judge  how  far  the  Irish  Roman  Catholics  agree  with 
these  foreign  universities,  let  him  peruse  the  following  passage  from  the  letters 
of  Dr.  O'Connor,  published  under  the  name  of  Columbanu9 :  "  Notwithstand- 
ing the  oath  of  allegiance,  by  which  Roman  Catholics  swear  that  the  pope  has 
no  power  over  the  temporalities  of  states,  yet  the  Irish  titular  bishops  assem- 
bled in  synod  at  Tullow,  so  lately  as  the  6th  of  June,  1809,  extolled,  as  just, 
holy,  and  legitimate,  those  bulls  of  Pius  VII.  by  which  he  has  absolved  all 
Frenchmen  from  their  allegiance  to  the  Bourbons;  expressly  alienating,  not 
only  the  crown  of  France,  but  also  the  property  of  all  French  loyalists,  secu- 
lar and  ecclesiastical  ;  and  hurling  down  from  their  sees  above  a  hundred 
French  bishops,  who  were  guilty  of  no  other  crime,  than  that  of  a  conscientious 
regard  to  their  oaths,  and  fidelity  to  their  prince." — Letters,  Fart  2,  p.  5. 


128 

mineering  power.  Stat  magni  nominis  umbra.  Man- 
kind is  become  too  enlightened  to  submit  again  to  the 
intolerable  joke,  which  "  neither  we  nor  our  fathers 
were  able  to  bear."  And  could  these  pages  contri- 
bute, in  the  smallest  degree,  to  this  truly  Christian 
emancipation,  by  leading  to  a  revision  of  some  of  the 
most  obnoxious  tenets  and  usages  of  our  Roman  Ca- 
tholic brethren,  the  time  and  attention  bestowed  on 
them  would  be  abundantly  rewarded.  The  religious 
opinions  of  many  Roman  Catholics,  especially  in  this 
country,  are,  we  trust,  undergoing  a  silent  reforma- 
tion, and  the  "  dark  monsters  of  superstition  and  bi- 
gotry," as  was  remarked  on  another  occasion,  "  are 
retreating  gradually  before  the  light  of  genuine  reli- 
gion and  philosophy"  In  proof  of  this,  the  learned 
Dr.  Hales  refers  us  (p.  203.)  to  the  formal  answer  of 
the  doctors  of  Sorbonne  to  the  consultation  of  the  Ro- 
man Catholics  of  Ireland,  recorded  by  Dr.  Butler. 
U  Compare,  also,"  says  he,  "  Veron's  French  rule  of 
faith,  subjoined  to  Hooke's  religionis  naturalis,  et  reve- 
latce  principia,  with  the  canons  and  creed  of  Pius  IV. 
and  the  difference  is  most  striking  and  satisfactory. 
M  This  (rule  of  Veron)  at  present"  says  Mr.  Bering- 
ton,  M  is  the  great  hinge  on  which  our  whole  religion 
turns."*  (p.  34,  reflect,  x.)  If  we  peruse  his  "  English 
Roman  Catholic  principles,  in  reference  to  God  and 
the  country,"  drawn  up,  as  he  tells  us,  in  the  reign  of 
Charles  II.  but  retouched  by  himself,  we  shall  find 
many  of  the  exceptionable  tenets  of  the  Roman  church 


*  The  rule  is  this  :  "  For  any  doctrine  to  become  an  article  of  Catholic  faith, 
two  things  are  conjointly  necessary ;  first,  that  it  be  revealed  by  God  :  se- 
condly, that  it  be  proposed  by  the  Church'' — i.  e.  by  the  Catholic  Church,  of 
which  Protestant  Churches  are  branches. 


129 

rejected  or  explained  away.  O,  may  the  divine  Head 
of  the  Churt.h  further  this  blessed  approximation  to 
each  other,  among  <  11  the  members  of  his  mystical 
body,  until  they  meet  together  "  in  the  unity  of  the 
spirit,  in  the  bond  of  peace,  and  in  righteousness  of 
life."  But  this  will  never  be  the  case,  unless  modern 
apologists  for  the  Roman  Church,  shall  deem  it  a  more 
wise  and  Christian  measure,  candidly  to  relinquish 
some  untenable  posts,  than  by  roundly  taxing  Pro- 
testants with  misrepresentation,  to  lay  them  under  the 
disagreeable  necessity,  of  exposing  the  tenets  them- 
selves, in  all  their  weakness  and  futility,  to  the  public 
eye. 

And  now,  having  been  induced  from  a  sense  of 
duty,  and  the  solicitations  of  friendship,  partially  to 
embark  once  more  on  the  tide  of  controversy,  the 
writer  of  this  reply  assures  the  Rev.  Gentleman  and 
his  brethren,  that  it  is  neither  his  wish  nor  intention 
to  be  borne  down  the  stream,  into  the  boundless  ocean 
of  polemical  contention.  But,  as  a  teacher  of  reli- 
gious truth,  it  must  ever  be  a  branch  of  his  bounden 
duty,  to  refute  the  fallacy  of  the  most  lofty  preten- 
sions, when  they  presume  to  confine  forgiveness  of  sins, 
or,  in  other  words,  the  benefits  of  redemption,  with- 
in the  limits  of  one  particular  communion  ;  when  they 
would  shake  that  blessed  assurance  of  safety  and  ac- 
ceptance, which  arises  from  faith  in  the  word  of  God 
alone,  and  encumber  practical  religion,  with  obser- 
vances unauthorized  by  the  scripture,  which  have 
frequently  driven  the  bold  offender  into  atheism,  and 
the  timid  into  despair,  fn  a  word,  as  a  watchman 
stationed  by  Providence  on  the  walls  of  Zion,  it  is  his 
duty  to  mark  the  approach  of  every  error,  and  to  re-^ 

17 


130 

pel  every  attack  upon  the  sanctuary,  whether  pro- 
ceeding from  open  enemies,  or  mistaken  friends,  and 
to  do  this  with  weapons  drawn  exclusively  from  the 
sacred  arsenal  itself;  namely,  "  with  love  unfeigned 
and  that  meekness  of  wisdom,  which  is  from  above, 
first  pure,  then  peaceable,  gentle,  and  easy  to  be  en- 
treated, full  of  mercy,  and  good  fruits,  without  par- 
tiality, and  without  hypocrisy." — James  iii.  17. 


THE    END. 


SOME 

REMARKS 

ON 

DR.  O'GALLAGHER'S     BRIEF  REPLY 

TO 

DR.  WHARTON'S  'SHORT  ANSWER 

TO 

A  TRUE  EXPOSITION 


THE  DOCTRINE    OF    THE    CATHOLIC   CHURCH 


THE  SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE,"  &c. 


BY  CHARLES  H.  WHARTON,  D.  D. 

Rector  of  St.  Mary's  Church,  at  Burlington,  N.  J. 


NEW-YORK  : 

PUBLISHED  BY  D4VJD   LONGWORTH,    11    PARK!. 

Clayton  &  Kingsland,  15  Cedaivst.  Printers. 

1817. 


4 

illustrious  citizens,  who  has  always  been  a  member 
of  a  Protestant  church,  seems,  at  first,  to  exhibit 
some  striking  features,  of  what  is  vulgarly  called  a 
bull :  It  is,  at  any  rate,  an  awkward  compliment  to  a 
Protestant  professor,  to  tell  him,  that  the  false  and 
impious  consequences  in  which  his  principles  necessari- 
ly eventuate,  prove  the  falsehood  and  irreligion  of  the 
principles  themselves."  (Seep.  169.)  Leaving,  then, 
this  matter  to  be  adjusted  between  the  worthy  Gen- 
tleman and  the  Doctor,  I  proceed  to  make  a  few  short 
reaiarks  upon  his  reply — I  say  short,  for  if  the  reader 
will  be  pleased  to  revert  to  the  "  Answer  to  the  Ap- 
pendix," he  will  readily  become  acquainted  with  the 
state  and  merits  of  the  controversv  ;  and  will  there 
discover,  I  trust,  an  anticipated  refutation  of  all  the 
bold  and  sophistical  assertions  in  which  the  Doctor's 
reply  so  copiously  and  confidently  abounds.  It 
would,  therefore,  be  irksome,  as  well  as  unnecessary, 
to  travel  again  over  the  beaten  ground.  I  am  willing 
still  to  rest  the  validity  of  the  arguments  against  sa- 
cramental confession,  or  the  sacrament  of penance,  (so 
the  Doctor  would  have  it  called,)  as  defined  by  the 
council  of  Trent,  on  the  authorities  alleged  in  that 
answer.*  The  Doctor  opens  his  battery  against  the 
Short  Answer,  by  the  discharge  of  a  syllogism,  which 
he   feels    confident   will    demolish  all   its    bulwarks. 


*  Dr.  O'G.  is  very  angry  at  auricular  confession  being  called  a  sacra- 
ment; (p.  11.)  and  yet,  (p.  42.)  he  says,  u  the  whole  procedure  of  the  sacra- 
ment, often  goes  under  the  appellation  of  confession,  in  the  catechisms,  in- 
structions, and  canons  of  the  church."  What  will  the  Doctor  say  to  one  of  the 
popes,  who  calls  confession  a  sacrament,  as  Bellarm.  informs  us  :  (c.  adabolend. 
de  haeret :)  This  pope  was  Lucius  III  H  Greater  accuracy,"  says  the 
Doctor,  "might  surely  be  expected  from  a  doctor  of  divinity;"  what* 
greater  accuracy  than  from  a  pope  ? 


(p.  10.)  The  major,  or  first  proposition  of  this  syllo* 
gism,  no  Protestant  will  deny  ;  viz.  "  that  every  doc- 
trine of  religion,  which  is  founded  in  the  scripture, 
and  has  been  acknowledged  and  venerated  as  divine 
by  the  church,  in  the  decrees  of  her  councils,  the  de- 
clarations of  her  bishops  and  holy  fathers,  and  the 
veneration  and  practice  of  the  faithful  through  all 
ages,  from  the  time  of  the  apostles  to  the  present  day, 
must  necessarily  be  orthodox  and  of  divine  institution. 
But  the  doctrine  of  the  sacrament  of  penance,  and 
the  necessity  of  confession  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
is  founded  in  the  Scriptures,  &c.  &c:  therefore,  the 
doctrine  of  the  sacrament  of  penance,  and  of  the  ne- 
cessity of  confession  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  is  or- 
thodox and  divine." 

"To  answer  the  Exposition  or  the  Appendix,"  says 
Dr.  O'Gallagher,  "  he,"  Dr.  W.  "  should  have  solved 
the  above  syllogism,  which  constitutes  the  grand  ar- 
gument, and  effectual  lever  of  the  whole  work  :  and 
to  solve  that  syllogism,  it  was  necessary  to  disprove 
the  minor  proposition."  Now,  by  what  confusion  of 
ideas  could  the  Doctor  be  induced  to  imagine,  that 
this  minor  proposition  could  be  refuted  in  any  other 
way,  than  by  denying  it  altogether  in  the  first  in- 
stance, and  then  proving  it  to  be  utterly  unfounded  ? 
This  was  done  by  showing,  1.  "  That  the  doctrine  of 
auricular  confession,"  or  (to  avoid  a  mere  quibble  rais- 
ed by  the  Doctor,  p.  11,)  the  doctrine  of  such  confes- 
sion^ constitutes  an  integral  act  or  part  of  a  divinely 
instituted  sacrament  of  the  Christian  church,  called  the 
sacrament  of  penance,  has  no  foundation  in  Scripture. 
2.  That  this  doctrine  was  unknown  to  the  primitive 
church,  and  that  previously  to  the  thirteenth  century 


G 

it  had  never  been  enacted,  I  say  enacted  into  an  arti- 
cle of  faith  and  indispensable  discipline.  3.  That 
neither  the  council  of  Lateran,  nor  any  other  tribunal, 
has  a  right  to  impose  such  a  grievous  yoke  upon  the 
faithful,  from  a  plea  to  infallibility,  as  this  plea  is  al- 
together unsupported  either  by  reason  or  revelation. 

Now,  will  Dr.  O'G.  deny,  that  the  proof  of  these 
three  points,  must  contain  the  refutation  of  hi$\minor 
proposition,  and  invalidate  all  the  consequences  of  his 
syllogism.  He  acknowledges  that  the  "  first  of  these 
positions,  is  opposed  to  the  assertion  of  the  Exposition. 
The  second,  he  pronounces  partly  false  and  partly 
absurd;"  (p.  11.)  that  is,  it  is  a  falsehood  to  assert 
that  this  doctrine  was  unknown  to  the  primitive 
church,  and  it  is  an  absurdity  to  assert  that  previously 
to  the  thirteenth  century,  it  had  never  been  enacted 
into  an  article  of  faith  and  indispensable  discipline. 
The  third  proposition,  he  styles  "  a  mere  jargon  of 
unmeaning  words,  not  expressing,  or  refuting  any  prin- 
ciple or  tenet  of  Catholics."  From  the  9th  to  the 
30th  page  of  the  Short  Answer  to  the  Exposition,  the 
reader  will  find  ample  materials  for  refuting  the  first 
clause  of  the  Doctor's  formidable  minor,  and  all  the 
sophisms,  plausible  and  irrelevant,  with  which  he  la- 
bours to  uphold  it.  He  will  there  see  one  probable 
meaning  of  the  power  of  the  keys  as  conveyed  to  St. 
Peter,  and  the  other  apostles:  (Matt.  xvi.  18.)  or,  at 
least,  he  will  1  trust  be  convinced,  that,  taken  in  any 
sense,  it  can  never  apply  to  sacramental  confession. 
Passing  by,  therefore,  the  whole  mass  of  sophistry, 
which  the  Doctor  has  accumulated  around  this  text,  his 
unsuccessful  attack  upon  Dr.  Adam  Clark,  and  Gren- 
ville  Sharp,  his  feeble  endeavours  to  place  St.  Peter  at 


the  foundation  of  the  Christian  church,  by  confounding 
his  doctrines  with  his  person,  and  in  express  contra- 
diction to  the  assertion  of  St.  Paul,  (I  Cor.  iii.  11.) 
"  That  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay,  than  is  laid, 
which  is  Christ  Jesus  ;"  passing  by,  1  say,  these  and 
some  other  particulars  altogether  immaterial,  such  as 
the  parade  of  Biblical  criticism  respecting  the  word 
AKpoyufyo/t,  which  the  learned  Parkhurst,  in  his  lexicon, 
composed  expressly  to  explain  all  the  words  of  the  New 
Testament, interprets,  "The foundation  corner-stone," 
applied  figuratively  to  Christ ;  I  will  here  submit  to  the 
Doctor's  consideration,  a  few  remarks  upon  this  text, 
from  a  sermon  of  the  modern  theological  luminary, 
Bishop  Horseley,  which  may  probably  come  nearer 
to  his  ideas  on  this  subject,  than  what  he  has  met  with 
in  Protestant  divines,  although  manifestly  confirming 
the  first  proposition  of  the  Short  Answer  to  the  Ap- 
pendix. 

*The  learned  bishop  having  proved  to  the  entire 
satisfaction  of  his  own  mind,  and  probably  also  to  that 
of  his  readers,  "that  St.  Peter  (Matt,  xvi.)  answered 
only  for  himself — that  the  blessing  he  obtained  was 
for  himself  singly,  the  reward  of  his  being  foremost 
in  the  faith  which  he  confessed  ;  that  to  be  the  carrier 
of  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven,  to  loose  and 
bind  on  earth  in  any  sense,  which  the  expressions  may- 
bear  in  this  passage,  were  personal  distinctions  of  the 
venerable  primate  of  the  apostolic  college,  appropri- 
ated to  him  in  positive  and  absolute  exclusion  of  all 
other  persons ;  in  exclusion  of  the  apostles  his  con- 
temporaries, and  of  the  bishops  of  Rome  his  succes- 
sors, concludes  by  asserting,  that "  any  interpretation  of 

v  Bishop  Horseley's  Sermon,  xiih 


this  passage,  or  any  part  of  it,  founded  upon  a  notion, 
that  St.  Peter,  on  this  occasion,  spake,  or  was  spoken 
to,  as  the  representative  of  the  apostles,  is  groundless 
and  erroneous."  Having  laid  this  foundation,  he 
then  proceeds  to  fix  the  sense  of  the  first  promise 
made  to  St.  Peter :  "  This,"  he  says,  "  consists  of 
these  two  articles,  that  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  ok 
Heaven  should  be  given  to  him,  and  that  whatever 
he  should  bind  or  loose  on  earth,  should  be  bound  or 
loosed  in  Heaven." 

"  The  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven  here  promi- 
sed to  St.  Peter,  by  the  principles  we  have  laid  down 
for  the  exposition  of  this  text,  must  be  something 
quite  distinct  from  that,  with  which  it  has  generally 
been  confounded;  viz.  the  power  of  the  remission  and 
retention  of  sins,  conferred  by  our  Lord  after  his  re- 
surrection, upon  the  apostles  in  general,  and  trans- 
mitted through  them,  to  the  perpetual  succession  of 
the  priesthood.  This  is  the  discretionary  power 
lodged  in  the  priesthood,  of  dispensing  the  sacra- 
ments, and  of  granting  to  the  penitent,  and  refusing 
to  the  obdurate,  the  benefit  and  comfort  of  absolution. 
The  object  of  this  power,  is  the  individual  upon  whom 
it  is  exercised,  according  to  the  particular  circumstan- 
ces of  each  man's  case.  It  was  exercised  by  the 
apostles  in  many  striking  instances;  it  is  exercised 
now  by  every  priest,  when  he  administers  or  with- 
holds the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, or,  upon  just  grounds  pronounces,  or  refuses  to 
pronounce,  upon  an  individual  the  sentence  of  absolu- 
tion. St.  Peter's  custody  of  the  keys  was  quite  ano- 
ther thing.  It  was  a  temporary,  not  a  perpetual  au- 
thority ;  its  object  was  not  individuals,  but  the  whole 


9 

human  race.     The  kingdom  of  heaven  upon  earth,  is 
the  true  church  of  God.*     It  is  now,  therefore,  the 
Christian  church:   formerly   the   Jewish  church  was 
that  kingdom.     The   true   church   is  represented  in 
this  text,  as  in  many  passages  of  holy  writ,  under  the 
image   of  a   walled   city,  to   be  entered  only  at  the 
gates.     Under  the  Mosaic  economy,  these  gates  were 
shut,  and  particular  persons  only  could  obtain  admit- 
tance; Israelites  by  birth,  or  by  legal  incorporation. 
The  locks  of  these  gates  were  the  rites  of  the  Mosa- 
ic law,  which  obstructed  the  entrance  of  aliens.     But 
after  our  Lord's  ascension,  and  the  descent  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  keys  of  the  city  were  given   to  St.  Peter 
by  that  vision,  which  taught  him,  and  authorized  him  to 
teach  others,  that  all  distinctions  of  one  nation  from  ano- 
ther, were  at  an  end.     By  virtue  of  this  special  com- 
mission,  the  great  apostle   applied   the  key,  pushed 
back  the  bolt  of  the  lock,  and  threw  the  gates  of  the 
city  open  for   the   admission   of  the    whole    Gentile 
world,  in  the  instance  of  Cornelius   and  his    family. 
To  this,   and  to  this  only,  our  Lord  prophetically  al- 
ludes, when  he  promises  to  Peter  the  custody  of  the 
keys.     With   this,  the  second  article  of  the  promise, 
the  authority  to  loose  and  bind,  is  closely  connected. 
This  again  being,  by  virtue  of  our  rule  of  interpreta- 
tion, peculiar  to  St.  Peter,  must  be   a  distinct  thing 
from  the  perpetual  standing  power  of  discipline,  con- 
veyed upon  a  latter  occasion,  to  the  church  in  gene- 
ral, in  the  same  figurative  terms.     St.  Peter  was  the 
first  instrument  of  Providence  in  dissolving  the  obliaa- 
tion  of  the  Mosaic  law  in  the  ceremonial,  and  of  binding 
it  in  the  moral  part.     The  rescript,  indeed,  for  that 

*  See  Reply,  p.  32. 


10 

purpose,  was  drawn  by  St.  James,  and  confirmed  by  the 
authority  of  the  apostles  in  general,  under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  Holy  Ghost;  but  the  Holy  Ghost  moved 
the  apostles  to  this  great  business  by  the  suggestion 
and  persuasion  of  St.  Peter,  as  we  read  in  the  15th 
chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles:  and  this  was  his 
particular  commission  to  bind  and  loose.  The  great 
apostle  fulfilled  his  commission  in  his  lifetime.  He 
applied  his  key — he  turned  back  the  lock,  he  loosed 
and  he  bound :  the  gates  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven 
w7ere  thrown  open;  the  ceremonial  law  was  abrogat- 
ed; and  the  successors  of  St.  Peter  in  the  see  of  Rome, 
can  give  neither  furtherance  nor  obstruction  to  the 
business."(a) 

And  now  let  the  impartial  reader  determine,  whe- 
ther or  not  this  promise  to  St.  Peter,  has  any  reference 
to  sacramental  confession  and  absolution,  as  defined 
by  the  council  of  Trent,  to  a  power  of  unlocking,  or 
binding  up  the  consciences  of  men,  by  claiming  a  cir- 
cumstantial disclosure  of  their  most  hidden  sins ;  let 
him  pronounce  upon  the  modesty  of  the  Doctor  "  in 
declaring  an  appropriate  allusion  of  the  very  learned 
Dr.  Lightfoot  to  be  nonsense"  in  stringing  on  it  affect- 
ed witticisms  totally  irrelevant,  and  very  unbecoming 
a  grave  divine ;  in  accusing  Protestant  theologians  of  a 
wilful  perversion  of  the  Scriptures,  and  in  roundly  and 
grossly  asserting  that  by  adopting  their  unanswerable 
arguments,  and  some  indignant  expressions  against 
groundless  and  tyrannical  pretensions,  "  the  author 
of  the  Answer  has  dearly  purchased  favour  by  the 
merited  contempt  of  learned,  honest,  and  honourable 

(a)  gee  notes  at  the  end. 


11 

men."  (p.  41.)  This  would  be  a  dear  purchase,  indeed  J" 
but  as  the  Doctor  probably  means  by  learned,  honest, 
and  honourable  men,  the  partisans  of  his  own  bigoted 
and  unfounded  opinions,  their  contempt,  in  addition 
to  that  of  Dr.  O'Gallagher,  can  weigh  but  lightly  on 
a  mind,  which  shares  it  with  such  Christian  champi- 
ons as  Lightfoot  and  Clark.  Perhaps  the  Doctor 
has  met  with  the  wise  maxim  of  Seneca,  "  iEquo 
animo  audienda  sunt  imperitorum  convicia,  et  ad 
honesta  vadenti  contemnendus  est  ipse  contemptus." 
At  any  rate,  however,  the  Doctor's  contempt  is  very 
immaterial  to  the  present  discussion. 

Men  truly  learned,  honest,  and  honourable,  will  pro- 
bably pity  such  a  sentiment  in  a  Christian  divine, 
while  they  look,  and  look  in  vain,  for  any  arguments 
drawn  from  holy  Scripture,  to  support  his  assertions. 
If  men  of  this  description,  will  turn  to  the  Short  An- 
swer, they  will  readily  perceive  what  slender  founda- 
tions are  laid  in  the  Scriptures,  for  sacramental  con- 
fession. The  strongest  text  is  in  Matt.  xvi.  18.,  and 
^hat  has  been  shown  to  be  a  baseless  pretext.  Hard, 
indeed,  has  the  Doctor  laboured  to  press  others  into 
his  service,  but  let  the  candid  reader  refer  to  the  dis- 
cussion of  them  in  the  Answer  ;  and,  I  trust,  he  will 
conclude,  that  something  more  is  required  to  discover 
in  holy  writ,  the  most  sacred  and  lofty  pretensions  of 
mortals,  than  wily  sophisms  and  strained  interpreta- 
tions, influenced  by  the  prejudices  of  preconceived 
opinions,  and  never  daring  to  question  them.  The 
Scripture,  therefore,  affords,  no  ground  for  sacrament- 
al confession.  The  proofs  of  this  position  may  be 
found  in  the  Short  Answer,  and  Dr.  O'Gallagher  is 
defied  to  refute  them. 


12 

Before  we  proceed  to  vindicate  the  second  part  of 
the  Short  Answer,  it  will  be  necessary  to  notice  a  tran- 
sient reference  to  Peter  Lombard,  a  celebrated 
schoolman  of  the  12th  century,  merely  to  show  that 
in  his  day,  sacramental  confession  was  not  deemed  a 
scriptural  practice  of  indispensable  obligation,  or  that 
the  texts  alleged  by  the  exposition  to  support  it,  were 
not  deemed  conclusive.  It  is  really  astonishing,  that 
the  mention  of  this  old  divine,  merely  en  passant, 
should  have  put  the  Doctor's  bile  into  such  violent 
commotion.  He  cries  out  imposition,  imposture,  Pro- 
testant credulity,  &c,  as  if  all  the  merits  of  his  cause 
depended  on  the  authority  of  Peter  Lombard.  But 
what  will  the  leader  say,  when  he  sees  that  all  the 
Doctor's  fire  evaporates  into  smoke,  or  rather  into 
invisible  gas  ?  It  was  asserted  in  the  Short  Answer 
to  the  Appendix,  (p.  30,)  "  That  the  famous  master 
of  the  sentences,  delivers  the  doctrine  of  the  reforma- 
tion respecting  confession,  and  contradicts  that  of  the 
council  of  Trent."  Now,  what  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
reformation  on  this  head  ?  Is  it  not,  as  P.  Lombard 
truly  says,  "  that  God  only  remits  sins  and  retains 
them,  and  yet  that  he  has  granted  power  to  the 
church  to  bind  and  to  loosen  ;  but  he  binds  and  loosens 
in  a  different  manner  from  the  church.  For  he  re- 
mits sin  by  himself  only,  because  he  both  cleanses 
the  soul  from  the  inward  stain,  and  frees  her  from  the 
debt  of  eternal  death.  But  this  he  never  granted  to 
priests,  to  whom,  nevertheless,  he  gave  the  power  of 
binding  and  loosening,  that  is,  of  declaring  men  either 
bound  or  loosened.  Hence  our  Lord  first  restored 
the  leper  to  health  by  himself,  then  sent  him  to  the 
priests,  that  by  their  judgment  he  might  be  pronoun- 


13 

ced  to  be  cleansed."  The  power,  then,  of  declaring 
penitent  sinners  absolved  from  their  sins,  is  that 
which  the  master  of  sentences  delivers,  and  I  believe 
such  power  is  considered,  by  every  Protestant  church, 
as  constituting  one  part  of  "  the  ministry  of  recon- 
ciliation," committed  to  it  by  Christ.  The  Doctor 
has  not  questioned  the  authenticity  of  this  passage. 
Had  he  done  so,  its  doctrine  might  have  been  easily 
elucidated  by  corresponding  passages  from  many  of 
the  fathers.  One  from  Gregory  the  Great,  bishop  of 
Rome  in  the  7th  century,  shall  stand  in  place  of  them 
all.  When  commenting  on  the  5th  verse  of  the  32d 
Psalm,  "  Thou  who  alone  sparest,  who  alone  for- 
givest  sins,"  he  adds  this  paraphrase,  "  For  who  can 
forgive  sins  but  God  alone  ?"  (Greg.  Expos.  2.  Ps. 
Pcenitent.)  Who,  indeed,  can  exercise  a  prerogative 
belonging  exclusively  to  the  Most  High  ;  or,  as  the 
prophet  says,  (Micah  vii.  18.)  "Who  is  a  God  like 
unto  thee,  that  pardoneth  iniquity  ?"  Such  was  the 
doctrine  of  the  Christian  church,  before  the  councils 
of  Lateran  and  Trent.  Will  the  Doctor  say  that 
this  is  still  the  doctrine  of  the  church  of  Rome  ?  Will 
he  say  that  the  power  of  the  priest  is  declaratory  only, 
and  not  judicial  and  absolute?  Will  he  subscribe  to 
the  explicit  opinion  of  P.  Lombard,  in  another  pas- 
sage of  his  works,  "  that  in  remitting  or  retaining  sins, 
the  priests  of  the  gospel,  have  that  right  and  office, 
which  the  legal  priests  had  of  old,  under  the  law,  of 
curing  lepers  ?  These,  therefore,"  these  Christian 
priests,  "  forgive  sins  or  retain  them,  whilst  they 
show  and  declare  that  they  are  forgiven  or  retain- 
ed by  God."  {Lib.  4.  sentent.  dist.  14./.)  Besides  all 
this,  the  very  form  of  the  sacrament  of  penance,  is  de- 

3 


14 

fined  to  consist  in  these  words,  "  I  absolve  thee  from 
thy  sins,"  and,  therefore,  they  constitute  an  essential 
part  of  it.  "  Forgiveness,"  says  Bellarmine,  (de 
paenit.  lib.  3.  cap.  2.)  "  is  denied  to  them,  whom  the 
priest  will  not  forgive."  His  absolution  is  a  sacra- 
mental act,  which  confers  grace  by  the  work  wrought, 
that  is,  as  this  their  most  learned  controvertist  ex- 
pounds it,  "  actively,  and  immediately,  and  instru- 
mentally  effects  the  grace  of  justification,"  in  such  as 
receive  it.  "  Active  et  proxime,  atque  instrumenta- 
liter  efficit  gratiam  justifieationis."*  In  admitting  all 
this  as  the  doctrine  of  his  church,  the  Doctor  still 
maintains,  that  it  was  held  by  Peter  Lombard,  and 
all  other  orthodox  theologians,  who  lived  before  the 
13th  century:  and  this  he  does,  forsooth,  because  he 
takes  it  for  granted,  that  if  they  held  it  not,  they 
were  not  Catholic  divines,  as  the  church  can  never 
innovate  in  matters  of  faith.  Thus,  it  appears,  that 
even  admitting  the  opinion  of  P.  Lombard,  appealed 
to  by  the  Doctor,  viz.  that  confession  to  a  priest  is 
necessary  to  salvation;  it  is  still  true,  that  with  re- 
spect to  the  power  of  the  priest,  in  this  particular, 
the  doctrine  of  the  reformation  prevailed,  and  that 
of  the  council  of  Trent  was  unknown  before  the  13th 
century.  Again,  can  the  Doctor  demonstrate,  that 
the  confession  to  a  priest  deemed  necessary  by  P. 
Lombard,  is  the  same  particular,  circumstantial, private 
eonfession,  enjoined  on  all  Christians  by  the  most  bit- 
ter anathemas  of  that  church  in  after  ages,  or  that  it 
was  not  that  general,  humble,  and  sincere  acknow- 
ledgment of  sins,  accompanied  with  marks  of  hearty 

*  Id.  in  sacram.  ingenere,  lib.  2.  cap.  1. 


15 

repentance,  still  practised  in  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal church,  and  other  churches  of  Christendom  ?   Be 
this,  however,  as  it  may,  the  -opinion  of  P.  Lombard 
on  this  subject,  is  nothing  more  than  that  of  a  private 
divine,  which  he  tells  us  was  controverted   by  many 
doctors  of  his  day.     Among  other  questions  which  he 
propounds,  (lib.  4.  senten.  dist.  17.,)  he  asks,  "  whe- 
ther it  be  sufficient,  that  a  man  confess  his  sins  to  God 
alone,  or  whether  he  must  confess  to  a  priest  ?"     He 
then  mentions  a  variety  of  opinions  upon  the  subject, 
and  goes  on  to  say, "  to  some  it  seemed  to  suffice  if  con- 
fession were  made  to  God  only,  without  the  judgment 
of  the  priest,  or  the  confession  of  the  church ;  because 
David  said,   c  I  will  confess  unto  the  Lord  :'  he  says 
not  unto  a  priest,  and  yet  he  shows  that  his  sin  was 
forgiven  him."      "  On    these  points,"   he  continues, 
(ibid.)  "  even  the  learned  are  found  to  have  differed  in 
their  opinions,  because  the  doctors  seemed  to  deliver 
divers,    and    almost   contrary    judgments   therein ;" 
that  is  to  say,  the  ancient   doctors  were  divided  in 
their  opinions  concerning  auricular  sacramental  con- 
fession, and  although   P.    Lombard   appear  obscure- 
ly to  favour  it,  yet  his  idea  of  it  was  by  no  means 
such  as  afterwards  prevailed,  and  of  course,  his  au- 
thority, as  cited  in   the  Short  Answer,  remains  unim- 
paired.    I  have  dwelt  more  fully  than  I  intended   on 
this  accusation  of  the  Doctor,  to  show  how  easily  his 
sophistry  can  be  exposed,  and  to  check  his  constant 
propensity  to  cry  out  victory,  before  he  is  sure  that 
he  has  conquered.     To  persons  not  labouring  under 
invincible  prejudices,  the   express  authority  of  Tho- 
mas Aquinas,  might  have  appeared  sufficient  to  set- 
tle this  point :  speaking  of  the  opinion  of  those  who 


contended  that  it  was  lawful  to  maintain  the  validity 
of  confession  to  God  alone,  he  says,  (in  4.  (list.  17.) 
"  Magister  et  Gratiajjl&s  hoc  pro  opinione  ponunt, 
sed  nunc  post  determinationem  eccles'ia?  sub  Innocen- 
tio  III.  factam,  hasresis  reputanda  est."  "  The  master 
of  the  sentences  and  Gratian,  Jay  down  this  as  an  opi- 
nion ;  but  now,  after  the  determination  of  the  church 
under  Innocent  III.,  it  is  to  be  reputed  heresy."  So  that 
previously  to  that  determination,  during  12  centuries, 
an  opinion  was  suffered  to  be  current  in  the  church, 
which  was  afterwards  proscribed  as  pernicious  and 
heretical :  a  striking  instance,  among  many  others, 
that  infallibility  is  a  very  inadequate  and  idle  plea,  to 
secure  the  faith  and  practice  of  Christians,  when  it 
suffers  them  to  float  with  so  much  uncertainty,  and 
for  so  many  centuries,  in  the  writings  of  theologians. 
But,  says  the  Doctor,  (p.  61.)  in  reply  to  the  second 
part  of  the  Answer,  namely,  "  that  the  testimony  of  the 
ancient  fathers  does  not  prove  sacramental  confes- 
sion," "  the  first  member  is  false,  the  other  absurd.'''' 
To  prove  its  falsehood,  he  parades  again  all  the  de- 
tached passages  from  the  ancient  fathers,  brought 
forward  in  the  'Appendix,  and  explained  in  the  An- 
swer. He  adduces  many  others  equally  irrelevant, 
which  have  a  thousand  times  been  invalidated  and 
refuted,  as,  in  turning  to  the  Answer,  the  reader  will 
readily  perceive  ;  as,  also,  how  wery  irksome  it  would 
be  to  enter  again  upon  their  refutation.  The  merits 
of  the  question,  in  this  particular,  are  confidently  rest- 
ed on  the  reasonings  detailed  in  the  Answer,  from  the 
31st  to  the  47th  page.  As  to  the  additional  texts 
quoted  by  the  Doctor,  they  confer  no  further  weight 
on  those  in  the  Appendix',  and  all  of  them,  of  course, 


17 

may  be  safely  disregarded,  as  unconnected  with 
the  Tridentine  doctrine  of  sacramental  confes- 
sion. But  the  fact  is,  on  t^iis,  as  on  many  other 
points,  solitary  passages  are  culled  both  from  the 
Scriptures  and  the  fathers,  which  have  little  or  no 
bearing  on  the  subject  under  discussion  :  truths  are 
contested  which  nobody  denies,  while  the  real  dif- 
ficulties of  the  case  remain  unnoticed.  Great  compi- 
lers by  profession,  the  Doctor  and  his  associates  aim 
at  astonishing  their  readers  by  an  accumulation  of 
citations,  and  a  pretended  tradition  foreign  to  the 
question;  which  few  persons  will  be  at  the  pains  of 
examining,  and  then  decree  to  themselves  a  triumph, 
in  which  they  are  the  only  applauders,  while  the  rest 
of  the  world  is  smiling  at  their  folly.  Like  the  theo- 
logians of  the  council  of  Trent,  who,  in  order  to 
prove  their  doctrine  of  confession  from  Scripture, 
cited  every  passage  from  the  Old  and  New  Testament, 
where  the  word  /  confess,  or  confession  occurs,  these 
confident  gentlemen  adduce  from  the  ancient  fathers 
a  multiplicity  of  texts,  which  establish  about  as  con- 
clusively the  divine  right  of  confession,  as  they  do 
any  other  dogma  to  which  they  might  wish  to  apply 
them.     (See  Answer,  p.  51,) 

But  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  the  Doctor  con- 
tends, clearly  evinces  that  "  confession  (he  must  mean 
sacramental  confession)  was  the  solemn  rite,  and  neces- 
sary means  inculcated  by  the  pastors,  and  practised 
by  the  faithful  for  obtaining  forgiveness  of  sins, 
throughout  all  Christendom,  from  the  earliest  ages." 
(p.  63.)  The  reader  will  judge  from  what  has  al- 
ready been  said,  what  he  is  to  think  of  this  assertion; 
^perhaps  however  he  will  pardon,  and  the  Doctor  will 


18 

challenge,  a  little  further  illustration  of  this  matter. 
I  find  it  ready  to  my  hand  in  a  short  and  learned  dis- 
sertation of  my  venerable  friend,  the  present  bishop 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  in  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania,  on  auricular  confession,  p.  233  of  his 
lectures.  "The  passage  recorded,  {Acts  xix.  18.) 
i  Many  that  believed  came  and  confessed,  and  show- 
ed their  deeds,'  means  no  more,  than  that  their  appli- 
cation to  the  apostles  to  be  received  to  Christian 
communion,  was  accompanied  by  an  acknowledgment 
of  their  former  vicious  courses:  a  matter  not  uncom- 
mon in  every  Protestant  communion  at  this  day.  But 
that  a  special  confession  of  all  past  miscarriages,  was 
not  a  prerequisite  of  initiation  into  the  church  by  bap- 
tism, may  be  presumed  from  the  many  places,  in  which 
it  might  otherwise  have  been  expected  to  appear — as 
in  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch — in  that  of  Cornelius 
and  his  household — in  that  of  Jairus  and  his  house- 
hold.    (See  Answer,  p.  28.) 

"  On  the  present  subject,  the  works  of  the  early 
fathers  have  received  a  similar  treatment  with  the 
holy  Scriptures;  that  is,  the  absolute  duty  of  confes- 
sion to  God,  and  the  occasional  one  of  opening  the 
heart  to  the  ministers  of  his  word,  has  been  confound- 
ed with  the  indispensable  necessity  of  the  latter,  as  a 
condition  of  divine  pardon.  Thus,  Tertullian  is  in- 
troduced, as  to  the  purpose,  because  in  his  treatise 
concerning  patience,  among  many  animated  exhorta- 
tions to  persons  fallen  from  the  peace  of  the  church, 
he  counsels  them  to  implore,  on  bended  knees,  the 
prayers  of  the  presbyters,  and  of  all  others  who  were 
dear  to  God.  Cyprian  and  Origen  are  quoted  to  the 
same  effect,  and  on  similar  occasion  given.       But,  on 


19 

the  other  hand,  it  would  be  easy  to  bring  passages 
from  the  fathers — from  St.  Chrysostom  in  particular, 
in  various  passages  of  his  works — prescribing  confes- 
sion to  God  in  such  a  way  as  to  show,  that  they 
thought  no  other  necessary  to  the  pardon  of  sins. 
Even  in  the  legitimate  releasing  from  church  cen- 
sures, there  are  sundry  fathers  who  maintain,  that 
the  act  of  the  minister  is  not  judicial,  but  declaratory:'' 
After  tracing  plainly  the  origin  and  progress,  to  the 
final  enacting  of  auricular  confession  by  the  councils 
of  Lateran  and  Trent,  the  Bishop  proceeds,  (p.  235.) 
"  It  would  be  easy  to  recite  from  ancient  fathers,  ex- 
hortations to  repentance  under  a  variety  of  circum- 
stances; and  expressed  in  such  forms,  as  show  that 
they  are  materially  defective,  if  auricular  confession, 
so  evidently  wanting  in  them,  were  thought  univer- 
sally a  duty.  There  shall  be  given  the  instance  of 
the  Roman  Clement — undoubtedly  the  person  refer- 
red to  (Philip,  iv.  3.)  as  having  "  his  name  written  in 
the  book  of  life."  In  his  admirable  epistle  to  the  Co- 
rinthians, written  for  the  express  purpose  of  reclaim- 
ing them  from  a  schism;  after  having  set  before  them 
the  heinousness  of  their  offence,  he  exhorts  them  to 
beg  God's  forgiveness,  enlarging  on  the  sentiment, 
without  any  intimation  of  a  preparatory  step  of  au- 
ricular confession.  This,  if  required,  might  also 
have  been  pertinently  introduced  in  another  place, 
where  he  admonishes  those  who  had  laid  the  first 
foundation  of  the  schism,  "to  submit  themselves  to  their 
presbyters,  and  to  be  instructed  to  repentance,  bend- 
ing the  knees  of  their  hearts."  It  may  be  alleged  that 
confession  was  an  appendage  to  the  repentance,  to 
^vhich  they  were  to  be  instructed.     But   this  is  the 


20 

matter  in  question ;  and  it  is  contended  that  the  ge- 
neral requisition  of  such  a  condition  would  naturally 
have  introduced  the  mention  of  it  in  this  place.  The 
Corinthians,  it  is  true,  in  the  very  return  from  their 
schism,  must  have  acknowledged  their  fault  therein. 
But  \t\  easy  to  perceive  the  difference  between  this, 
and  the  disclosure  of  the  heart,  implied  in  the  subject 
under  consideration.  The  same  inference  may  be 
drawn  from  the  second  epistle  of  St.  Clement,  if  in- 
deed it  be  his ;  and  not  rather,  as  some  think,  erro- 
neously ascribed  to  him,  although  confessedly  very 
ancient.  Be  this  as  it  may,  we  have  there  an  earnest 
exhortation  to  repentance,  without  a  word  of  the  ne- 
cessity of  confession  to  a  minister.  But  there  is  no 
reason  to  confine  to  the  first  three  centuries,  what  is 
here  affirmed  of  the  sense  of  the  fathers.  Those  of 
the  fourth  century  were  equally  strangers  to  the  doc- 
trine in  question." 

The  Bishop  then  quotes  from  St.  Chrysostom  an 
explicit  passage  in  proof  of  his  assertion,  which  nei- 
ther Dupin,  nor  any  of  his  followers,  were  ever  able 
to  answer,  and  which  might  be  supported  by  a  crowd 
of  other  texts  from  contemporary  writers,  which  those 
brought  forward  in  the  Short  Answer  render  it  unne- 
cessary  to  allege,  and  which  would  probably  rather 
tire  the  patience  of  the  reader  than  add  to  his  inform- 
ation. Before  he  proceeds  to  quote  his  authorities 
from  the  fathers,  with  a  view  of  refuting  the  second 
part  of  the  Short  Answer,  the  Doctor  becomes  out- 
rageously angry,  and  somewhat  abusive,  on  account 
of  a  remark,  that  "  the  fathers  frequently  express 
themselves  on  the  subject  of  confession,  and  many 
other  points  of  discipline  existing  in  their  day,  in  a 


21 

language  little   consistent  with  that  coolness  and  ac- 
curacy, which  should   always   accompany   polemical 
disquisitions."  (p.  — .)     "  What  an  argument !"   ex- 
claims the  doughty  Doctor,  "  he  now  attempts  to  cri- 
ticise the  style  of  the  lathers."  (p.  63.)     Flimsy  apo- 
logy for  argument !     Horrid  impiety,  no   doubt,  and 
ignorance  unparalleled,  showing,  clearly,  "  how  well, 
in  the  estimation  of  every  man  of  letters,  the  writer 
was   qualified    to   censure  the   Cyprians,  the  Augus- 
tines,    &c.    and    other    luminaries    of  the    Catholic 
church."     If  this  is  not  finessing,  as  the  Doctor  calls 
it;  if  this  is  not  throwing,  not  "  handfuls,"  but  basket- 
fuls,  "  of  dust  in  people's  eyes,  and  giving  them  talk 
instead  of  truths,"  the  Doctor  will  be  puzzled  to  de- 
fine   what  is  so.     Will  he  pretend  to  affirm  that  the 
ancient   fathers  were   always  cool  and  accurate  ?     It 
surely  can  be  only  when  measuring  their  tempers  by 
the  standard  of  his  own,  that  he  presumes  to  hazard 
such  an   assertion.     In  sincere  respect,  profound  ve- 
neration, and  heart-felt  gratitude  to  the  persons  and 
writings   of  the   ancient  fathers   of  the  church,  the 
wrriter  of  these  pages,  will  not  yield  to  Dr.  O'Galla- 
gher,  or  any  of  his  associates.     He  appreciates  them 
as  intrepid  champions,  faithful  witnesses,  enlightened 
instructors,  and  glorious  martyrs  of  our  holy  religion ; 
but  to  regard  either  their  persons  or  writings  as  ex- 
empt  from  human   infirmities  and   error,  to  hold  up 
their  testimony  as  uniform  and  constant,  except,  in- 
deed, in  the  fundamental  and   leading   doctrines   of 
Christianity,  is  either  to  be  unacquainted  with  their 
writings,  to  impose  upon  the  ignorant,  or  to  flatter 
the  credulous/6)     "  One  does  not  know  which  to  ad- 

(6)  See  notes  at  the  end. 
4 


22 

mire  most,"  says  the  Doctor,  (p.  64.)  "  the  falsehood 
implied,  or  the  calumny  expressed,"  in  the  assertion 
Ifjat  the  "  fathers,  being  ignorant  of  any  divine  pre- 
cept respecting  sacramental  confession,  could  not  be 
expected  to  enter  upon  its  discussion.  The  fact  is, 
no  controversy  on  this  point  existed  in  their  day ;" 
and  if  this  had  been  the  case,  it  is  not  to  be  doubted, 
but  they  would  have  entered  into  it  with  as  much 
warmth,  detail,  and  accuracy,  as  are  to  be  found  in 
modern  manuals,  casuists,  and  treatises  innumerable. 
Let  the  Doctor  produce  his  documents  of  this  kind; 
let  him  show  us  from  history,  that  kings  and  queens, 
and  other  great  personages,  had  their  stated  confess- 
ors :  that  at  certain  seasons  the  churches  were  crowd- 
ed with  those  who  repaired  thither  for  confession; 
that  plenary  indulgences  were  annexed  to  this  exer- 
cise ;  and  that  the  absolution  of  some  crimes  was  re- 
served to  the  Bishop,  and  others  to  the  Pope  alone. 
Let  him,  I  say,  favour  us  with  any  authentic  accounts 
of  the  primitive  Christians,  which  state  their  devo- 
tions in  this  particular,  to  resemble  those  of  the  pre- 
sent Roman  church,  or  give  any  countenance  to  these 
and  other  practices  naturally  resulting  from  sacra- 
mental, auricular  confession,  and  I  will  admit  his  im- 
putation of  falsehood  and  accusation  of  calumny :  if 
the  Doctor  cannot  do  this,  then  these  vulgar  terms 
must  recoil  upon  himself.  He  would,  however,  do 
well  to  remember,  that  to  take  for  granted  the  testi- 
mony of  the  fathers,  and  then  to  abuse  all  those  who 
reject  it,  neither  implies  nor  expresses  accuracy  or  can- 
dour. "  Bold  and  censured  opinions,"  he  tells  us,  (p. 
98.)  "  have  no  weight  with  Catholic  divines  :"  or,  in 
other  words,  the  Roman  church  has  only  to  censure 


23 

any  passages  in  the  ancient  fathers  and  modern  di- 
vines, that  clearly  make  against  her;  and  such  passa- 
ges are  immediately  excluded  from  their  testimony. — 
A  summary  method,  truly,  of  getting  rid  of  difficulties, 
which,  nevertheless,  runs  through  the  Doctor's  whole 
performance.  Presuming  on  the  infallible  authority 
of  his  church,  he  presents  this  attribute  as  an  impene- 
trable shield  against  every  hostile  weapon;  he  retires 
into  this  impregnable  fortress,  after  all  its  outworks 
are  demolished.  But  to  this  last  asylum,  also,  we 
will  endeavour  to  follow  hirn,  even  through  the  many 
and  intricate  labyrinths,  with  which  he  labours  to  im- 
pede our  way.  Before  we  enter,  however,  on  this 
subject,  which  constitutes  the  third  part  of  the  Short 
Jlnswer,  we  entreat  the  reader  to  consider  attentively 
the  obvious  meaning  of  the  texts  alleged  on  both  sides 
of  the  question,  and  to  decide  impartially  on  their 
merits.  Let  him  discard  the  idea  of  any  existing  au- 
thority, in  an  infallible  church,  to  press  some  of  them 
into  her  service,  and  to  disown  others  as  erroneous, 
and  then,  perhaps,  should  this  infallibility  be  found 
chimerical  and  groundless,  he  will  conclude  that  the 
author  of  the  Short  Answer  did  not  "  throw  away  any 
spare  ammunition,  (p.  20.)  in  strings  of  questions,  and 
a  rant  of  interrogation,"  which  the  Doctor  has  endea- 
voured in  vain  to  answer,  by  passing  them  by  "  as 
the  common  resort  of  school-boys  in  their  juvenile 
compositions,  to  dazzle  the  eyes  of  youthful  and  in- 
considerate readers."  But  readers  of  a  different  de- 
scription, will  possibly  perceive  from  the  foregoing 
pages,  that  the  Doctor  also  has  made  some  proficien- 
cy in  ranting;  and,  indeed,  two  thirds  of  his  book 
consist  of  nothing  else.      As  to  his  humour,  take  the 


24 

following  specimen :   it  was  said  in  the  Answer,  that 
the  power  of  the  keys,  or  the  authority  to   bind   and 
to  loose,  to  forgive  and  regain  sins,  given  by  Christ  to 
his  apostles,  &c.  is  very  different  from  that  exercised 
by  the  Romish  priests,  in  the  sacrament  of  penance; 
and  that,  consequently,  the  retention  of  sins  is  no  part 
of  this  sacrament;  of  course,  that  this  sacrament  is  not 
founded   in   the  words  of  Christ's  commission.     This 
was  all  that  was  meant,  and  all  that  was  said;    but, 
"  as  well,"  exclaims  the  Doctor,  "  might  he  say,  refus- 
ing to  open  a  door,  is  not  opening  it :  therefore,  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  opening  a  door."    Very  witty,  in- 
deed !  as  if  the  power,  or  commission  of  opening  and 
shutting   a   door,  could  be   completely  exercised  by 
opening  it  alone.     One  word  more  on  a  verbal  quib- 
ble of  the  Doctor,  and  this  part  of  the  subject  shall 
be  dismissed.     In  the  Answer  (p.  8.)  it  was  asserted, 
that  u  the  doctrine  of  sacramental  confession  was  un- 
known to  the  primitive  church,  and  that  previous  to 
the   13th  century  it  had  never  been  enacted  into  an 
article  of  faith,  and  indispensable  discipline."  Through- 
out the   preceding  pages,  and  those  of  the  Answer, 
the  proofs  of  these  propositions  will  readily  be  found, 
and  to  them  the  reader  is  again  confidently  referred. 
But  the  word  enact,  it  seems,  excites  the  Doctor's  in- 
dignation,  and  absurdity  and   imposture  are  dealt  out 
with  great  liberality  upon  his  opponents;   and   this, 
forsooth,  because   "  the  church  never  creates  a  new 
article  of  faith ;"  but  merely   "  declares  and   defines 
the  ever-subsisting  faith,  once  delivered  to  the  saints, 
and  always  retained  and   venerated  by  the  body  of 
the  faithful."  (p.  60.)     In  other  words,   she   will  not 
acknowledge  that  she  has  ever  erred,  or  that  her 


25 

doctrines  have  not  always  been  the  same  as  they  are 
at  this  day.  Here  is  begging  the  \ery  point  in  ques- 
tion; for  Protestants  contend  and  prove  that,  by  enact- 
ing new  articles  of  faith,  she  has  erred  from  the  truth. 
Was  it  not  many  ages  after  the  Christian  era,  that 
the  sacrament  of  penance  was  made  one  of  the  seven? 
Was  not  a  practice,  deemed  previously  optional, 
enacted  into  a  law  by  the  Lateran  council  ?  How- 
ever, if  the  Doctor  will  curb  his  petulance  and  com- 
pose his  temper,  for  the  sake  of  such  a  benefit,  we 
will  abandon  the  obnoxious  word,  and  agree  that  to 
declare  a  new  article  of  faith,  is  the  same  as  to  enact 
it;  and  he  will  not  refuse  to  admit  the  declaration  of 
Thomas  Aquinas,  that  "  what  was  matter  of  opinion 
before  the  council  of  Lateran,  became  heresy  after 
it;1'  and  that,  of  course,  a  new  article  was  added  to 
the  belief  of  his  church. 

But,  no,  says  the  Doctor,  my  church  is  infallible, 
she  cannot  err,  she  is  secured  from  every  possibility 
of  mistake,  so  that  all  her  declarations  on  matters  of 
faith  are  irrefragable  and  binding,  and  without  ad- 
mitting them,  there  is  no  salvation, (V) — so  at  least 
say  all  her  confess^  of  faith.  On  her  declaration, 
therefore,  we  are  bound  to  receive  and  practise  her 
doctrine  of  sacramental  confession;  and  this  declara- 
tion is  manifestly  founded  on  her  claim  to  infallibility. 
Now,  it  was  asserted  in  the  third  part  of  the  Short 
Answer,  (p.  72.)  that  "  neither  the  councils  of  Late- 
ran nor  of  Trent,  nor  any  other  earthly  tribunal,  had, 
or  has,  a  right  to  impose  such  a  grievous  yoke  as  au- 
ricular confession  upon  the  faithful,  from  a  plea  to  in- 

(c)  Sec  notes  at  (he  end. 


26 

fallibility :    this  plea  being    altogether    unsupported 
either  by  reason  or  revelation." 

This  third  proposition,  the  Doctor  styles  "  a  mere 
jargon  of  unmeaning  words,  not  expressing  or  refut- 
ing (he  probably  meant  contradicting)  any  principle 
or  tenets  of  Catholics."  "  It  is  a  mere  jargon  of  un- 
meaning words,"  says  the  Doctor,  M  to  assert  that  no 
authority  upon  earth  can  bind  on  the  faithful  such  a 
grievous  yoke  as  auricular  confession,  from  a  plea  to 
infallibility:"  and  yet  this  is  the  very  plea  on  which  it 
is  done  ;  on  what  other  plea  could  it  be  done  ?  What 
but  the  claim  of  being  an  unerring  guide  in  matters 
of  faith,  arising  from  a  supposed  right  to  fix  the  sense 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  to  define  traditions  equally  im- 
perative, could  have  emboldened  the  Lateran  council 
to  decree,  {cap.  21.)  "  Omnis  utriusque  sexus  fidelis," 
and  "  Let  every  one  of  the  faithful  of  either  sex,  be- 
ing come  to  the  years  of  discretion,  by  him,  or  her- 
self alone,  once  in  the  year  at  least,  faithfully  con- 
fess their  sins  to  their  own  priest,  &c.  Otherwise, 
let  them,  when  living,  be  excluded  from  the  church, 
and,  when  dead,  be.  deprived  of  Christian  burial." 
Nothing  surely  but  a  consciousness  of  an  exemption 
from  error,  or  the  plea  of  infallibility,  could  induce 
the  council  to  enact,  or  the  faithful  to  obey,  such  an 
outrageous  decree.  The  author  of  the  Appendix, 
more  logical,  or  more  candid  than  the  Doctor,  saw 
this  subject  in  its  proper  light,  and,  therefore,  declares 
without  hesitation,  (p.  82.)  "that  his  fourth  and  last 
argument  in  favour  of  the  divine  institution  of  confes- 
sion,  is  drawn  from  the  infallibility  of  the  church, 
which  has  repeatedly  and  solemnly  declared  this 
truth  in  her  general  councils,  and  emphatically  taught 


27 

the  same  in  every  age."  On  the  plea  of  infallibility, 
therefore,  this  doctrine  has  been  declared,  and  taught, 
and  enforced  by  the  Roman  church.  "  This  plea," 
says  the  Answer,  "  is  unsupported  either  by  reason 
or  revelation  :"  and,  therefore,  with  respect  to  sacra- 
mental confession,  is  totally  null  and  void.  So  much 
for  the  Doctor's  "  mere  jargon  of  unmeaning  words," 
and  his  bold  assertion,  that  the  proposition  "  does  not 
contradict  any  tenet  of  his  church." 

We  proceed  now  to  the  Doctor's  animadversions 
on  the  third  part  of  the  Answer  to  the  Appendix.  And 
we  may  begin  by  observing,  that  the  refutation  of 
each  of  his  arguments  and  sophisms,  has  been  antici- 
pated in  that  Answer.  Of  this,  the  reader  is  invited 
to  judge,  and  he  is  moreover  entreated  kindly  to  over- 
look any  repetitions,  which  must  necessarily  occur  in 
accompanying  the  Doctor  over  the  very  same  ground 
which  is  traversed  by  the  Appendix,  or  through  any 
anomalous  courses  peculiar  to  himself.  The  texts 
on  which  the  Doctor  grounds  the  infallibility  of  his 
church,  are  noticed  and  explained  in  the  Answer,  from 
the  72d  to  the  83d  page;  and  although  they  have  sup- 
plied materials  for  many  a  ponderous  volume,  carry 
with  them  a  meaning  so  simple  and  obvious,  that  to 
an  unprejudiced  mind  they  need  no  prolix  discussion. 
The  first  that  occurs  in  the  Answer,  {Matt.  xvi.  18.) 
"The  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  the 
church,"  is  that,  on  which  the  Roman  Catholic  wri- 
ters lay  the  greatest  stress,  and  shall,  therefore,  re- 
ceive, exclusively,  some  additional  attention.  I  find 
a  lucid  and  unanswerable  explanation  of  this  text,  in 
a  sermon  of  the  profound  and  accurate  Bishop  Horse- 
ley,  mentioned  above.     "  On  these  words,"  says  the 


£8 

learned  prelate,  "  that  '  the  gates  of  hell,'  &C. — the 
time  compels  me  to  be  brief,  nor  is  there  need  I 
should  be  long.  In  the  present  state  of  sacred  litera- 
ture, it  were  an  affront  to  this  assembly,*  to  go  about 
to  prove  that  the  expression  of  '  the  gates  of 
hell,'  describes  the  invisible  mansion  of  departed 
souls,  with  allusion  to  the  sepulchres  of  the  Jews  and 
other  eastern  nations,  under  the  image  of  a  place  se- 
cured by  barricadoed  gates,  through  which  there  is 
no  escape,  by  natural  means,  to  those  who  have  once 
been  compelled  to  enter.  Promising  that  these  gates 
shall  not  prevail  against  his  church,  our  Lord  promi- 
ses not  only  perpetuity  to  the  church,  to  the  last  mo- 
ment of  the  world's  existence,  notwithstanding  the 
successive  mortality  of  all  its  members  in  all  ages ; 
but,  what  is  much  more,  a  final  triumph  over  the  pow- 
er of  the  grave.  Firmly  as  the  gates  of  Hades  may 
be  barred,  they  shall  have  no  power  to  confine  his 
departed  saints,  when  the  last  trump  shall  sound, 
and  the  voice  of  the  archangel  shall  thunder  through 
the  deep." — "  The  promise  of  stability,  in  the  text,  is 
to  the  church  Catholic  :  it  affords  no  security  to  any 
particular  church,  if  her  faith,  or  her  works  should 
not  be  found  perfect  before  God.  The  time  shall 
never  be,  when  a  true  church  of  God  shall  not  be 
somewhere  subsisting  on  the  earth  ;  but  any  individu- 
al church,  if  she  fall  from  her  first  love,  may  sink  in 
ruins ;  of  this,  history  furnishes  but  too  abundant 
proof,  in  the  examples  of  churches,  once  illustrious, 
planted  by  the  apostles,  watered  by  the  blood  of  the 
first  saints  and  martyrs,   which  are  now  no  more. 

*  The  Societj  for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  foreign  parts. 


29 

Where  are  now  the  seven  churches  of  Asia,  whose 
praise  is  in  the  Apocalypse  ?  Where  shall  we  now 
find  the  successors  of  those  earliest  archbishops, 
once  stars  in  the  Son  of  Man's  right  hand  ?  Where 
are  those  boasted  seals  of  Paul's  apostleship,  the 
churches  of  Corinth  and  Philippi  ?  Where  are  the 
churches  of  Jerusalem  and  Alexandria  ?"  As  these 
ancient  churches,  so  those  of  our  day  may  be  aban- 
doned and  disappear,  and  in  some  distant  quarter  of 
the  globe,  now  lying  in  the  gloom  of  superstition  or 
idolatry,  when  become  enlightened  with  the  rays  of  the 
gospel,  the  question  may  be  asked,  where  now  is  the 
church  of  England ;  where  now  is  the  church  of 
Rome  ?  "  But,"  says  the  Doctor,  "  this  latter  suppo- 
sition can  never  be  realized,  because  the  gates  of  hell 
can  never  prevail  against  the  Catholic  church,  which 
is  the  Roman  church."  So  that,  in  the  idea  of  the 
Doctor,  a  particular  and  universal  church  is  the  same 
thing.  But  let  that  pass.  "With  any  error  in  doctrine," 
says  he,  "  there  could  be  no  church  at  all ;  for  all  er- 
rors destroy  the  church."  This,  indeed,  is  very  high 
ground,  and  the  Doctor  maintains  it  with  a  train  of 
sophistry  seldom  surpassed.  He  assumes  all  along, 
that  the  Catholic  church,  and  the  Roman  church,  are 
synonymous  appellations.  Now,  this  is  the  very  point 
in  question,  and  the  difficulty  is  to  prove  it ;  "  hie 
labor,  hoc  opus  est."  The  Catholic  church  is,  in- 
deed, the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth;  and,  therefore, 
by  teaching  any  doctrine  subversive  of,  or  contrary 
to,  the  Christian  faith,  she  would  cease  to  be  a  Chris- 
tian church.  As  this  is  never  to  be  the  case,  so  the 
teaching  of  such  doctrine  can  never  take  place.  But 
can  any  individual  church  claim,  from  these  premises. 


30 

an  exemption  from  error?  Protestants  have  proved 
that  the  Roman  church  has  erred ;  and,  if  so,  she 
cannot  surely  substantiate  such  a  pretension.  The 
whole  of  the  controversy,  indeed,  turns  upon  this 
point,  and,  until  it  is  settled,  the  contending  parties 
must  remain  as  they  are.  It  is  only  from  a  compre- 
hensive view,  of  ail  the  points  in  litigation,  that  the 
matter  can  be  determined  :  but  when  the  Doctor  as- 
serts, (p.  Ill,)  that,  "in  admitting  a  church  to  be 
subject  to  error,  some  men"  (that  is,  the  whole  body 
of  Protestants)  "  pretend  to  indulgence  and  liberali- 
ty, and  that  this  is  an  impious  indulgence ;"  he  betrays 
a  spirit  very  unbecoming  his  character.  Protestants 
affirm,  and  have  repeatedly  proved,  that  the  doc- 
trines of  religion  generally  maintained  by  all  Chris- 
tian churches,  in  all  places,  and  at  all  times,  consti- 
tuted the  code  of  Christian  faith  and  morals  ;  and  that 
the  great  body  of  her  pastors  should  always  teach, 
and  the  great  body  of  the  faithful  should  always  ad- 
roit, these  doctrines,  in  spite  of  all  the  attacks  of  the 
infernal  powers.  Let  a  period  be  pointed  out,  when 
God  was  left  without  a  witness,  when  an  error  pre- 
vailed universally  through  Christendom,  subversive 
of  some  fundamental  tenet,  and  it  will  be  acknow- 
ledged that  the  church  ceased  to  exist.  Against 
errors,  however,  of  minor  importance,  errors  neither 
damnable  nor  destructive,  no  security  has  been  given, 
and  none  is  necessary.  Previously  to  the  coming  of 
Christ,  the  Jewish  church  was  the  church  of  God,  it 
was  instituted  and  taught  by  God  himself  through  his 
servant  Moses  ;  his  Spirit  was  always  ready  to  lead 
this  church  into  all  truth,  and  high  priests,  priests,  and 
Levites,  were  appointed  to  guard  the  sacred  deposit 


31 

of  its  faith — the  law  and  the  prophets  ;  yet,  who  will 
say  the  Jewish  church  never  erred  ?  Perpetuity,  in- 
deed, was  not  promised  to  this  church,  yet  it  was  found- 
ed, and,  while  it  existed,  was  guided  by  the  Spirit  of 
God.  When,  however,  by  the  exercise  of  that  free- 
dom of  the  will,  which  is  essential  both  to  individuals 
and  collective  bodies,  and  which  was  not  to  be  con- 
trolled by  any  special  interference  of  Providence,  it 
afterwards  fell  into  gross  idolatry  and  palpable  su- 
perstitions ;  when  one  great  portion  of  this  church 
denied  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  our  Saviour 
cautions  his  disciples  against  the  doctrines  of  the 
other,  (Luke  xii.  3.)  who  taught  for  doctrines  the 
commandment  of  men,  (Mark  vii.  7.)  and  rejected 
the  commandment  of  God,  that  they  might  keep  their 
own  traditions  ;  (v.  9.)  then  it  was,  that  the  Tal- 
mud, having  defaced,  and,  in  some  points,  invalidated 
essential  points  of  the  law,  the  Jewish  church  was 
abolished.  And  had  not  infinite  wisdom  decreed,  that 
of  the  kingdom,  or  church  of  Christ,  there  should  be 
no  end,  and  that  he  would  support  it  to  the  consum- 
mation of  the  world,  the  hay  and  stubble,  which  have 
occasionally  been  heaped  upon  its  foundations,  would 
probably  ere  now,  have  so  far  obscured  them,  that 
we  should  look  in  vain  for  this  blessed  society.  But 
thanks  be  to  God,  these  foundations  are  still  conspicu- 
ous and  evident ;  the  flimsy  superstructures,  at  times 
erected  upon  them,  have  been  thrown  down  by  the 
strong  hand  of  the  Almighty  ;  and  at  this  day,  as  in 
that  in  which  they  were  first  laid,  they  allbrd  to 
owary  believer  solid  security,  and  the  assurance  which 
is  of  faith.  These  foundations  are  the  essential  doc- 
trines of  the  gospel,  and  therefore  styled  fundamental. 


32 

The  Doctor  denies  that  there  are  any  doctrines  of 
this  description,  (p.  109,)  and  qualifies  such  a  notion, 
as  false  and  absurd.  The  reader,  perhaps,  with  the 
Doctor's  leave,  may  presume  to  think  otherwise. 
What !  are  there  then  no  doctrines  that  lie  at  the 
foundations  of  religion  ?  Are  all  of  equal  intrinsic 
value,  importance,  and  weight  ?  Truth",  indeed,  as 
such,  is  incapable  of  augmentation,  and  one  truth  is 
as  great  as  another.  It  is  equally  true,  that  Isaac  be- 
gat Jacob,  as  that  Christ  ivas  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary  ; 
but  will  any  man  of  sense,  who  dares  to  think  for  him- 
self, pronounce  these  truths  to  be  equally  essential 
to  Christianity?  Can,  I  say,  any  man,  with  his  mind 
unshackled  by  prejudice,  education,  and  sophistry, 
reallv  believe,  that  the  profession  of  faith,  enjoined 
by  Pope  Pius  IV.,  has  added  nothing  to  the  founda- 
tions of  Christian  faith,  contained  in  the  Apostolic  and 
Nicene  creeds  ?  Will  he  admit,  "  that  the  doctrine  of 
purgatory,  of  the  invocation  of  saints,  of  the  veneration 
of  their  relics,  are  as  fundamental  articles,  of  a 
Christian's  belief,  as  the  mystery  of  the  ever  blessed 
Trinity  ;  that  the  images  of  Christ,  of  the  mother  of 
God,  even  virgins,  and  also  of  other  saints,  ought  to 
be  had  and  retained,  and  that  due  honour  and  vene- 
ration is  to  be  given  them."  (See  Pope  Pius's  Creed.') 
Will  he,  I  say,  believe  that  these  truths  are  as  fun- 
damental, as  essential  to  the  existence  of  the  Chris- 
tian church,  as  that  of  Adam's  fall ;  of  the  incarnation 
and  death,  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of  Jesus 
Christ;  of  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  of  a  state  of 
future  retribution,  and  of  the  duty  of  worshipping' 
God  in  spirit  and  in  truth  ?  Well  may  we  say  with 
the  Doctor,  "  what  does  this  jargon  mean  ?     What. 


33 

Indeed,  does  it  mean,  but  to  bewilder  the  minds  and 
consciences  of  Christians,  and  when  they  could  no 
longer  relish  sound  doctrine,  to  turn  them  to  fables, 
often  as  oppressive  in  their  tendency,  as  unfounded  in 
their  origin  ?  Now,  if  some  truths  only  be  fundamen- 
tal, of  course,  some  errors  only  can  partake  of  this 
denomination. 

These  errors  may  deform,  but  not  destroy  the 
church.  She  was,  indeed,  to  be  led  into  all  truth 
necessarily  connected  with  the  ends  of  her  establish- 
ment, but  no  promise  is  made  her,  that,  besides  such 
truths,  none  of  her  particular  branches  should  ever 
teach  and  countenance  errors  of  any  kind.  But  the 
Doctor  will  say,  with  Pope  Pius,  that  these  doctrines, 
which  Protestants  style  errors,  constitute  "  the  true 
Catholic  faith,  without  which  no  one  can  be  saved ;" 
therefore  they  are  fundamental.  This  I  know  is  said, 
and  rung  perpetually  in  the  ears  of  Roman  Catholics. 
But  by  whom  is  it  said — by  Jesus  Christ,  their  Lord 
and  their  God,  or  by  those  who,  like  Levi's  sons,  have 
taken  too  much  upon  them  ?  "  Rash  expositors,  of 
points  of  doubtful  disputation,"  (says  the  late  liberal 
and  worthy  Bishop  of  Llandaff,  Theol.  Tracts?)  "  intole- 
rant fabricators  of  metaphysical  creeds  and  incon- 
gruous systems  of  theology  !  Do  you  undertake  to 
measure  the  extent  of  any  man's  understanding,  except 
your  own,  to  estimate  the  strength  and  origin  of  his 
habits  of  thinking;  to  appreciate  his  merit  or  demerit 
in  the  use  of  the  talents  which  God  has  given  him; 
so  as  unerringly  to  pronounce  that  the  belief  of  this 
or  that  doctrine,  is  necessary  to  his  salvation  ?  It  is, 
undoubtedly,  necessary  to  yours,  if  you  are  persuaded 
that  it  comes  from  God;  but  you  take  too  much  upon 


34 

you,  when  you  erect  yourself  into  an  infallible  judge 
of  truth  and  falsehood.  We,  as  Christians,  are  under 
no  uncertainty  as  to  the  being  of  a  God  ;  as  to  his 
moral  government  of  the  world  ;  as  to  the  terms  on 
which  sinners  may  be  reconciled  to  him  ;  as  to  "  the 
redemption  which  is  in  Jesus  Christ;  as  to  the  re- 
surrection from  the  dead ;  as  to  a  future  state  of  re- 
tribution, &c. :  but  there  are  other  subjects,  on  which 
the  academicorum  s™*»,  may  be  admitted,  I  appre- 
hend, without  injuring  the  foundations  of  our  reli- 
gion." But,  unhappily  for  the  peace  of  the  church, 
the  lust  of  dominion,  and  the  rage  for  dogmatizing, 
has  identified  with  these  sacred  foundations  other  ex- 
traneous materials,  as  the  Spirit  of  God  had  expli- 
citly foretold,  and  thus  held  them  out  as  equally  sa- 
cred and  important.  This  subject  might  be  prose- 
cuted to  any  given  length,  and  fresh  arguments  would 
continually  spring  up  to  show  the  slender  grounds  of 
the  Doctor's  triumph  in  this  particular.  The  mazes 
of  logical  reasoning,  with  which  he  endeavours  to  con- 
vince his  readers,  (p.  112.)  will  serve  only  to  bewil- 
der them,  and  keep  down  the  suggestions  of  common 
sense  to  untutored  minds.  To  instance  this  in  one 
short  sentence.  He  says,  "  The  church  that  would 
admit  and  teach  an  error  in  faith,  would  violate  the 
whole  faith."  The  church  that  would  admit  and 
teach  such  an  error,  knowingly  and  willingly,  and  if 
such  an  error  were  subversive  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion, would,  certainly,  violate  the  whole  faith,  and 
cease  to  be  a  church.  But  here  the  question  returns, 
whether  such  an  error  be  fundamental,  or  otherwise  ; 
for  it  is  from  such  only  that  exemption  is  promised 
in  the  Scriptures.     If  the  reader  wishes  to  obtain  fur- 


35 

ther  satisfaction  on  this  point,  let  him  turn  to  the  3d 
chapter  of  that  elegant  and  acute  reasoner,  Dr.  Chil- 
lingworth,  where  the  distinction  between  fundamen- 
tals and  non-fundamentals,  is  logically  and  irrefraga- 
bly  established.  Perhaps,  however,  before  this  sub- 
ject is  finally  dismissed,  the  following  passage,  from 
the  3d  ses.  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  may  stagger  the 
Doctor's  confidence,  or,  at  any  rate,  puzzle  him  to 
defend  its  consistency:  "Symbolum  fidei,  quo  sancta 
ecclesia  Romany  utitur,  tanquam  principium  illud,  in 
quo  omnes,  qui  fidem  Christi  profitentur,  necessario 
conveniunt^  ac  firmamentum  firmum  et  unicim  con- 
tra quod  portae  inferi  nunquam  praevalebunt,  totidem 
verbis  quibtis  in  omnibus  ecclesiis  legitur,  exprimen- 
dum  esse  censuit."  "  The  council  has  declared,  that 
the  symbol  of  faith  used  in  the  holy  Roman  church, 
as  that  principle  in  which  all  who  profess  the  faith  of 
Christ  necessarily  agree,  and  that  firm  and  only 
foundation,  against  which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  never 
prevail,  shall  be  expressed  in  the  same  words,  in 
which  it  is  read  in  all  the  churches.,,(J)  And  now  let 
the  Doctor  exclaim,  as  dogmatically  as  he  pleases, 
"  away,  then,  with  these  fictions  of  fundamental  and 
non-fundamental  faith  ;"  (doctrines,  he  should  have 
said ;)  "  such  language  being  calculated  to  amuse 
and  mislead  the  credulous  or  interested  abettors  of 
particular  systems."  (p.  112.)  Let  him  indulge  him- 
self in  his  usual  style  of  dictatorial  importance;  en- 
lightened Protestants  will  smile  at  his  presumption, 
and  still  regard  his  realities  as  fictions,  and  their  fic- 
tions as  solemn  realities. 

(d)  See  notes  at  the  end. 


36 

We  proceed,  next,  to  the  third  proposition  collect- 
ed from  the  Answer,  and  which  is  styled  not  only 
false^  but  proved  to  be  so,  by  experience,  (p.  109.)  It 
is  this :  "  That  the  church  may  always  secure  her- 
self from  capital  errors,  by  taking  for  her  guide  the 
light  of  clear  revelations,  and  the  evidence  of  rea- 
son." "  No,"  says  Dr.  O'Gallagher,  "  this  is  false  ; 
the  light  of  clear  revelation  and  the  evidence  of  reason, 
are  not  sufficient  to  secure,  nor  ever  did  secure  the 
church  from  capital  errors."  (p.  114.)  Here,  indeed, 
is  a  most  extraordinary  assertion.  The  Doctor  is 
surely  not  aware  into  what  a  snare  he  is  falling ;  but 
he  is  resolved  to  plunge  on,  heedless  of  consequences. 
"  Neither  the  wisest  man,"  says  he,  "  nor  the  wisest 
set  of  men,  can  secure  themselves  against  errors, 
whatever  guide  they  may  assume."  So  that  they 
cannot  secure  themselves  against  errors,  even  by  as- 
suming for  their  guide  the  church  of  Rome  herself. 
"  It  is  God  alone  that  can  secure  men  from  error:" 
so  say  Protestants  likewise.  But  how  can  he  do  this, 
except  by  the  instrumentality  of  revelation  and  rea- 
son? If  these  be  not  the  means  of  coming  at  the 
truth,  to  what  purpose  are  all  the  Doctor's  appeals 
to  Scripture  and  reason,  to  prove  the  infallibility  and 
doctrines  of  his  church?  By  omitting  these  appeals, 
he  might  have  saved  us  both,  considerable  trouble. 
But  how  he  could  have  proved  that  "  the  church  is 
secured  against  errors  by  the  special  assistance  of  Je- 
sus Christ,  (p.  114.)  without  exercising  the  faculty  of 
his  reason,  to  discover  this  promise  in  the  volume  of 
revelation,  would  require  a  train  of  sophistry  more 
subtle  than  even  that  of  the  Doctor.  The  fact,  then, 
is,  that  the  Protestant  churches,  being  lively  branch- 


37 

es  of  the  Catholic  church,  have  the  promise  of  Christ 
to  secure  them  from  destructive  errors.  This  pro- 
mise they  find  in  their  Bibles ;  on  him  who  made  it, 
they  rely  for  its  performance;  and  his  unerring  gui- 
dance they  endeavour  cordially  to  adopt  and  follow, 
as  well  as  every  other  doctrine  and  precept  which 
they  read  in  his  revealed  word.  As  to  the  divisions 
among  Protestants,  which  the  Doctor  attributes  to 
their  making  the  Scripture  their  sole  rule  of  faith, 
they  were  such  as  did  not  aim  at  subverting  the  foun- 
dations of  Christianity,  or,  if  they  did  so,  the  commu- 
nities thus  guilty  no  longer  deserved  the  name  of 
Christian  churches.  Divisions  or  variations  among 
the  first  reformers  did,  undoubtedly,  exist,  but  they 
were  not  destructive.  Unanimity  was  not  to  be  ex- 
pected from  persons  labouring  under  ancient  preju- 
dices, and  striving  to  remove  various  errors  and 
abuses,  novel  tenets,  and  unjustifiable  observances, 
gradually  accumulated  through  preceding  ages.  In 
this  mighty  work,  the  timid  were  afraid  of  advancing 
too  far,  and  the  intrepid  knew  not,  sometimes,  at 
what  point  to  stop.  Some  years  were  necessary  to 
calm  the  tempest,  and  bring  order  out  of  confusion. 
This  was  done  much  sooner  than  the  most  sanguine 
lovers  of  truth  had  anticipated  ;  and  the  event  was, 
that  all  the  real  or  pretended  variations  of  Bossuet, 
collected  with  so  much  ingenuity  and  research,  prove 
nothing  against  the  principles  of  Protestants ;  they 
serve  only  to  show,  that  man,  in  spite  of  all  his  boasted 
knowledge,  and  best  resolves,  is  still  a  frail,  unset- 
tled, and  imperfect  being,  and  that  nothing  but  a 
plain,  revealed,  and  written  code  of  faith,  can  restrain 

6 


38 

his  wanderings  into  fatal  and  damnable  errors. 
This  elegant  libel  received  a  complete  refutation 
from  Basnage,  in  his  "  Historie  de  la  Religion  des 
Eglises  Reformers." 

However,  as  the  Doctor  seems  to  lay  great  stress 
upon  the  authority  of  his  illustrious  Bossuet,  famous 
for  nothing  so  much  as  for  his  cruel  animosity  against 
the  truly  illustrious  Fenelon ;  for  his  oppression  of 
poor  Madame  Guion,  and  his  heretical  opinions  re- 
specting religious  persecution,  which  he  always 
maintained  and  realized  when  he  could;  it  may 
be  well  enough  to  inform  the  reader,  that  his  fa- 
mous "  exposition  of  the  Roman  Catholic  faith,"  fur- 
nishes ample  matter  for  retaliation,  on  the  subject  of 
religious  variations.  Although  this  little  book  be 
now  considered  by  the  Doctor  (p.  183.)  as  the  stan- 
dard of  orthodoxy,  yet,  many  years  elapsed,  from  its 
first  publication,  before  it  could  obtain  the  approba- 
tion of  the  Pope,  though  sanctioned  by  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Rheims,  and  nine  other  prelates.  Even  the 
Sorbonne  itself  disavowed  the  doctrines  it  contain- 
ed; and  many  Roman  Catholic  priests  were  severe- 
ly persecuted,  for  maintaining  its  principles,  which 
were  formally  condemned  by  the  university  of  Lou- 
vain.  The  artifices  employed  in  the  composition  of  this 
book,  and  the  tricks  that  were  played  off  in  the  sup- 
pression and  alteration  of  its  first  edition,  may  be  seen 
fully  detailed  in  Archbishop  Wake's  "  introduction"  to 
his  "  exposition  of  the  doctrines  of  the  church  of  Eng- 
land." The  variations,  therefore,  among  Protest- 
ant churches,  afford  no  argument  against  the  sufficien- 
cy of  Scripture,  as  the  only  rule  of  their  faith;    and 


39 

their  security  in  resting  exclusively  upon  this  im- 
moveable foundation.  To  say  that  all  sects  profess- 
ing to  follow  Scripture  as  their  guide,  have  not  ac- 
tually secured  themselves  from  fundamental  errors, 
such  as  the  Arians,  Socinians,  &c.  (p.  11.)  and  that 
such  a  guide  is  of  course  insufficient  for  salvation,  is 
only  to  say,  that  some  men  have  actually  "  perverted 
the  Scriptures,  and  denied  the  Lord  who  bought 
them."  Without  impeaching  her  own  rule  of  faith, 
does  not  the  Roman  church  maintain,  that  they  who 
have  gone  out  from  her,  have  broached  "  damnable 
heresies ;"  and  may  not  Protestants  pronounce  the 
same  opinion,  of  those  who  have  abandoned  the  or- 
thodox tenets  of  all  antiquity,  and  of  the  great  body 
of  Protestants,  from  the  time  of  the  reformation. 
Is  their  rule  of  faith  insecure,  because  pride,  or  pre- 
judice, has  chosen  to  abandon  it?  The  Doctor's 
reasoning  on  this  head  is  palpable  sophistry:  he  ar- 
gues against  the  use  of  a  thing,  from  its  abuse.  On 
the  Scriptures,  then,  alone  the  Protestant  builds  his 
faith  :  because  he  believes  them  to  be  written  by  di- 
vine inspiration,  and  that  the  language  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  full  as  intelligible  as  that  of  a  pope  or  coun- 
cil can  be  :  because,  whatever  the  presumed  unerring 
guide  of  the  Roman  Catholics  could  do  for  him,  can 
be  effected  by  the  Bible  with  more  certainty,  and 
with  equal  security:  because,  in  adhering  to  the 
Scriptures  only,  he  would  chiefly  follow  that  by  which 
they  prove  their  infallibility,  since  he  must  be  more 
sure  of  the  proof,  than  of  the  thing  proved:  because, 
although  in  following  Scripture,  he  must  admit  seve- 
ral doctrines,  which  reason  never  could  have  disco- 
vered ;   yet  is  he  not  required  to  assent  to  any  thing, 


40 

which  solid  reason  can  refute,  and  which  involves  a 
palpable  contradiction :   because,  in  adhering  to  the 
church  of  Rome,  he  must  believe  that  church  to  be 
exempt   from  error,    upon  much  less  evidence   than 
that   which  points  out  many  of  her  doctrines  as  un- 
founded and  irrational :  because   the   Scripture  wor- 
ship is  replete  with  genuine  dignity,  simplicity,  and 
plainness,  which  speak  its  divine  original ;   whereas, 
he   sees  in  her  worship  a  ritual,  repugnant  both   to 
his  understanding  and  his  feelings:  because, in  follow- 
ing the  Scriptures,  he  cleaves  to  what  universal  tradi- 
tion assures  him  to  be  the  word  of  God  ;  but,  in  believ- 
ing thedoctrines  of  the  Roman  church,  he  must  yield  to 
a  very  partial  tradition,  which  many  good  and  learn- 
ed men  have  often  contested  :   because,  in  following 
the  Scripture,  he  follows   a   law,  which  the  more  he 
studies,  the  more   he  loves,  and  the  more  he   under- 
stands ;  but  in  following  her  discriminating  articles, 
the  more  he  examines  them,  the   more   questionable 
they  appear,  the  more  obscure,  and  uncertain,  from 
every   appeal   both   to   reason   and   revelation  :    be- 
cause, in  following  the   apostles,  he  follows   disinte- 
rested guides ;  whereas,  it  is  the  interest  of  all  Ro- 
man Catholic  rulers    and  teachers,  that  their  domi- 
nion should  be  upheld,  and  their  influence  over  men's 
consciences  be  maintained.    In  one  word,  the  faith  of 
Protestants  is  built  exclusively  upon  the   Scriptures, 
because  the  inspired  Psalmist  assures  us>   that   they 
are   "  a  lamp   unto   our  feet,    and    a    light  unto  our 
path:  (Ps.  119.:)  because  our  Lord  continually  refers 
to  the  Scriptures   to  determine   controversies,    com- 
manding them  to  "be  searched   as  testifying  of  him, 
who  is  the  Author  and  Finisher  of  our  faith  :"  because 


41 

i 

his  blessed  apostle  tells  us,  (2  Tim.  iii.  16.,)  "That  all 
Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  pro- 
fitable for  doctrine,  &c,  that  the  man  of  God  may  be 
perfect,  thoroughly  furnished   unto  all  good  works:'" 
perfect  in  his  faith,  and  walking  in  God's  command- 
ments ;   wanting  nothing  more   to   perfect  his  Chris- 
tian character ;  and,  again,  {Rom.  xv.  4.,)  "  Whatso- 
ever things  were  written  aforetime,  were  written  for 
our   learning,   for  our  instruction,  that   we   through 
patience  and  comfort  of  the  Scriptures  might  have 
hope ;"    thus  expressly  teaching  that  the  hopes,  and, 
consequently,  the  security  of  Christians,  are  ground- 
ed on  the  Scriptures.     Now,  if  these,  and  many  simi- 
lar texts,  be  not   conclusive,  it  must  be  because  the 
Doctor  lays  it  down  (p.  151.)  as  an  evident  truth,  that 
"  these  books  (of  the  holy  Bible)  do  not  assert  or  vouch 
their  own  divine  inspiration  ;"   so  that  the   prophets 
and  apostles,  when  they  wrote,  did  not,  according  to 
the  Doctor,  pretend  to,  or  indicate  any  divine    inspi- 
ration.    A  curious  assertion,  indeed,  for  a  Christian 
divine  ! — But  let  this   blunder   also   pass.     We  have 
thus  far  attended  the  Doctor  pretty  faithfully,  though 
with  that  brevity  which  is  consistent  with  a  few  cursory 
remarks  upon  his  book.     As  to  the  various  texts  of 
holy  Scripture,  upon  which  he  builds  the   infallibility 
of  his  church,  they  are  all   noticed,  and,  I  trust,  can- 
didly explained  in  the  Short  Jinswer  to  the  Appendix; 
and,  if  the  reader  should  wish  for  further  information 
on  this   head,   he  has  only  to  turn  to  the   polemical 
works  of  Cbillingworth,  Usher,  Barrow,  and  an  innu- 
merable  host  of  Protestant  writers  ;   who  have  re- 
peatedly and  completely  annihilated  these   lofty  pre- 
tensions of  the  Roman  church,  whenever  men  of  real 


42 

erudition  and  candour  have  thought  themselves  at 
liberty,  with  unbiassed  minds,  to  examine  them  to  the 
bottom.  In  these  works,  the  reader  will  find  that  all 
the  arguments  in  support  of  her  infallibility,  drawn 
either  from  its  expediency,  necessity,  or  advantages, 
or  from  its  vindicating  the  veracity  of  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  are  empty  words  and  vain  theology;  that  it 
affords  no  grounds  for  present  consolation,  or  hopes 
of  future  happiness,  which  communion  with  Protest- 
ant churches,  as  integral  parts  of  Christ's  mystical 
body,  does  not  equally  and  more  satisfactorily  sup- 
ply, and  that  after  all  that  can  be  said  upon  the  sub- 
ject, the  great  body  of  Christians  have  as  powerful, 
nay,  more  powerful  inducements  to  rely  upon  the 
teaching  of  a  Protestant  minister,  than  of  a  Romish 
priest ;  I  say,  more  powerful,  because  the  first  refers 
them  for  his  doctrines  to  the  unerring  oracles  of  God, 
while  the  latter  enjoins  implicit  submission  to  his  in- 
fallible church,  without  being  able  to  tell  him  clearly 
where  this  infallibility  can  be  found.  All  the  pages 
of  this  part  of  the  Doctor's  reply,  are  laboured  with 
much  subtlety,  and  calculated  to  lead  the  reader 
through  many  intricate  windings  of  his  polemical  la- 
byrinth. But  a  clue  may  readily  be  found  to  enable 
us  to  penetrate  into  its  most  hidden  recesses.  En- 
trenched within  these,  the  Doctor  delivers  his  ora- 
cular dogmata,  and,  like  Virgil's  Sybil,  thunders 
out  his  dark  denunciations,  blending  truth  with  ob- 
scurity, and,  like   her,  surrounded  only  with  sapless 


eaves. 


"  Talibus  ex  adyto  dictis  Cumcea  Sibilla 
Horrendas  canit  ambages,  antroque  remugit ; 
Obscuris  vera  involvens." 


43 

The  clue  alluded  to,  is  this ;  in  every  instance,  the 
Doctor  confounds  the  Catholic  with  the  Roman  church  j 
all  the  promises  and  privileges  belonging  to  the   for- 
mer, he  appropriates  to  the  latter,  under  the  preten- 
sion, that  to  her  alone    belongs  the  monopoly  of  all 
gospel  blessings,  and  the  name  of  a  Christian  church. 
Let  him  prove  this,  and  his  dark  sayings  will   appear 
luminous,  and  the  controversy  will   be  ended.     But, 
"  she  is  the  Mother  and  Mistress  of  all  churches ;"  so 
says  Pope  Pius;   so  has  the  Doctor  sworn.     She  has 
never  swerved  from  the  primitive  faith,  nor  can  she 
do  so;  she  has  never  innovated,  nor  can  she  innovate. 
In  her  the  man  of  sin,  the  false  prophet,  can  never  be 
found:   in  her  the  mystery  of  iniquity  can  never  begin  to 
work.       She  sittcth  as  a  queen,  and   never  can  be  driven 
into  the  wilderness;  and  this,  because  "every  succeed- 
ing generation  of  Christians  (p.  130,  131.)  bore  con- 
stant and  uniform  testimony  to  the  truth  of  her  doc- 
trines, from  the  apostolic  to  the  present  times.    These 
numerous  generations,  constituting,  at  every   period 
of  time,  the  Catholic  church,  were   all   simultaneous 
witnesses   of  the   doctrine  received,   preached,   and 
approved   by    common  consent :    so   that   no  one   of 
these  generations  could  make  a  change,  or  a  false  re- 
port of  the   faith  of  its  predecessors,  to   the  ensuing 
generation,  without  being  contradicted  and  confound- 
ed by  all  the   other  generations  existing  at  the  same 
time."      This  is   a  favourite   argument  with  Roman 
Catholic  divines,   and   the   Doctor  prosecutes  it  with 
tiresome  prolixity.      But   what   does   it   amount  to  ? 
Merely  to  prove,  what  Protestants  never  denied,  that 
when  destructive  heresies  arose  in  the  church,  great 
bodies  of  the   faithful   immediately  opposed  and  con- 


44 

demned  them,  as  levelled  at  those  common  and  es- 
sential doctrines  of  Christianity,  which  have  been  de- 
livered down,  through  successive  generations,  to  the 
present  day.  These,  however,  have  been  greatly 
obscured  in  some  particular  churches,  while  others 
have  preserved  them  in  all  their  purity ;  and  it  might 
readily  be  shown,  and  Dr.  Milner  has  shown  in  his 
History  of  the  Church,  that  in  every  age,  even  the 
most  ignorant  and  flagitious,  individuals  and  commu- 
nities have  adhered  to  the  scriptural  doctrines  of  sal- 
vation ;  while  surrounding  churches,  and  that  of 
Rome  in  particular,  encumbered  them  with  idle  and 
superstitious  innovations.  But  when,  or  where,  or  by 
whom,  were  these  innovations  introduced?  As  well 
might  we  be  required  to  ascertain  the  origin  of  every 
nation  and  language  upon  the  earth,  as  to  trace  each 
religious  opinion  or  practice  to  its  source.  The  be- 
ginning and  progress  of  innumerable  errors  and  su- 
perstitions, are  wrapt  in  obscurity.  There  was  a 
time  when  the  church  of  Rome,  like  others  of  Chris- 
tendom, was  pure  and  evangelical,  and  "  her  faith 
was  spoken  of  throughout  the  whole  world;"  but, 
like  others,  founded  by  the  apostles,  she  fell  away, 
gradually,  from  her  first  love,  and  during  the  long 
prevalence  of  brutal  ignorance,  and  more  than  Cim- 
merian darkness,  in  which  all  Christendom  was  enve- 
loped, from  the  irruption  of  the  northern  hordes  almost 
down  to  the  period  of  the  reformation,  she  enjoyed 
ample  opportunities  of  introducing  any  opinions,  of 
imposing  any  burthens  that  might  swell  her  treasures, 
or  gratify  her  ambition.  When  the  Doctor,  then, 
contends,  that  to  prove  the  existence  of  an  error,  we 
must  show  when  it  began,  or  that  it  cannot  be  re- 


45 

ceived  by  one  generation  without  being  condemned 
bj  the  following,  he  is  not  aware  of  the  consequences 
to  which  his  opinion  leads  him  ;  for,  should  it  be  well 
founded,  idolatry  could  never  have  existed  in  the 
world.  It  is,  I  believe,  admitted  on  all  hands,  that 
the  worship  of  Jehovah  was  originally  universal, 
without  any  mixture  of  idolatry  among  the  sons  of 
Adam,  for  some  time  after  the  creation;  and  that  it 
became  universal  again  anions:  the  descendants  of 
Noah  for  some  ages  after  the  flood ;  but  in  neither  of 
these  periods  did  this  worship  remain  long  uncor- 
rupted.  The  antediluvian  church  was  gradually  in- 
fected with  error,  and,  like  the  Christian,  had  her 
watchmen  ready  to  refute  it.  "  In  the  days  of  Enos 
men  began  to  call  themselves  by  the  name  of  Jeho- 
vah." {Gen.  iv.  26.)  At  this  time  pious  men  became 
alarmed  at  the  beginning  of  idolatry  in  the  reprobate 
family  of  Cain,  and,  like  many  communities  in  the 
most  gloomy  night  of  the  Christian  era,  formed  them- 
selves into  a  distinct  party  from  the  dominant  religion, 
and  assumed  to  themselves  a  name  indicative  of  the 
pure  worshippers  of  God.  Now,  when  or  where  did 
this  idolatrous  worship  begin  ?  Will  the  Doctor  ques- 
tion it,  because  he  cannot  fix  its  date  or  its  authors  ? 
The  case  in  the  postdiluvian  church  is  precisely  the 
same — Noah  and  his  family  came  forth  from  the  ark 
the  pure  worshippers  of  the  true  God  ;  but  their  pos- 
terity soon  began  to  exhibit  symptoms  of  idolatrous 
propensities,  and  to  blend  superstitious  observances 
with  the  worship  of  the  Eternal.  Instead  of  every 
successive  generation  protesting  against  the  innova- 
tions of  the  preceding,  it  rather  embraced  them  with 
increasing  eagerness,  until  at  length  incorrigible  su- 

7 


46 

perstition  separated  all  the  ancient  idolaters  from  the 
patriarchal  church,  and  ended  in  total  apostacy. 

Now,  when,  or  by  whom,  was  this  mixture  of  idola- 
try and  superstition  introduced  ?  We  find  "  Terah, 
the  father  of  Abraham,  serving  other  gods ;"  and  lit- 
tle doubt  can  remain,  that  the  ancestors  of  Abraham, 
and  Abraham  himself,  before  God's  gracious  call, 
were  infected  with  the  idolatry  which  prevailed  in 
that  age.  But  in  the  interval  between  the  deluge 
and  the  calling  of  Abraham,  an  interval  of  426  years, 
when,  or  where,  did  this  idolatry  begin  ?  This  discus- 
sion might  be  extended  to  any  length  ;  but  enough 
has  been  said  to  check  the  triumphant  strain  of  the 
Doctor,  and  likewise  to  convince  the  reader,  that 
with  the  worship  of  the  true  God,  and  the  acknow- 
ledgment of  his  providence,  some  superstitious  er- 
rors, not  destructive  of  either,  may  subsist :  "  Just  as 
at  this  day,  in  the  Roman  church,  the  worship  of  the 
ever  blessed  Trinity  subsists  in  preposterous  conjunc- 
tion with  the  worship  of  canonized  men,  and  inani- 
mate relics." — (See  Bishop  Horseley^s  Dissertation 
on  the  Prophecies  of  the  Messiah,  &c.)  We  cannot, 
therefore,  fix,  with  precision,  the  exact  period  when 
erroneous  opinions  and  practices  crept  into  the 
church.  It  is  sufficient  for  Protestants  to  show,  that 
they  have  existed,  do  exist,  and  have  been  refuted 
and  renounced.  But,  blessed  be  God,  we  can  readily 
point  to  a  time  when  such  opinions  were  unknown. 
We  can  turn  to  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
and  shall  there  find  nothing  of  them.  "  If,"  says  Dr. 
A.  Clark,  "  they  be  not  met  with  in  an  apostolic  epis- 
tle directed  to  this  very  Roman  church,  it  would  be 
absurd  to  look  for  them  any  where  else.     But  there 


47 

is  not  one  distinguishing  doctrine,  or  practice,  of  the, 
Romish  church,  found   in   this  epistle.      Here  is  no 
pope,  no  exclusive  churchship,  no   indulgences,  no 
auricular    confessions,   purgatories,   masses,   prayers 
for  the  dead,  justification  by  works,   transubstantia- 
tion,  extreme  unction,  invocation  of  saints  and  angels, 
worship  of  images,  &c.  &c.     Here  are  no  inquisitions, 
no  writs  dc  hceretico  comburendo ;"  nor,  it  may  be  added, 
that  holy  incompatibility,  which  the  illustrious  Bossuet 
claims  for  his  church,  and  which,  he  tells  us  exulting- 
ly,    renders    her    the   most   intolerant   of  all   churches. 
*'  But,"  continues  the  learned  commentator,  "  here  is 
nothing  puerile,  nugatory,  or  superstitious  ;  no  dogma 
degrading  to  the  understanding  ;  no  religious  act  un- 
worthy of  the  spirit  and   dignity  of  the  gospel;  no- 
thing that  has  not  the  most   immediate  tendency  to 
enlighten  the  mind,  and  mend  the  heart  of  man.     In 
a  word,  every  thing  is  suitable  to  the  state  of  man, 
and  worthy  of  the  majesty,  justice,  and  benevolence 
of  that  God  from  whom  this  epistle  came.     Nor  should 
we  look  for  these  doctrines  and  practices  with  more 
success  in  the  writings  of  the  primitive  fathers.     To 
pretend  that  there  was  a  universal  consent  or  agree- 
ment, upon  these  points,  during   the  first  ages  of  the 
church,  is  to   support  a  paradox,  which  deserves  no 
consideration.     It  is  utterly  destitute  of  all  historical 
evidence,  which,  however,  is  pointed  and  conclusive, 
that  for  several  centuries  they  were  not  known  in  the 
church:  Providence  has  mercifully  furnished  this  evi- 
dence  in  our  day — the  star  of  truth  has   appeared 
in  the  East.     A  precious  remnant  of  primitive  Chris- 
tians has  been  discovered  in  India,  which,  for  more  than 
thirteen  centuries,  has  preserved  the  great  and  fun- 


48 

daraental  doctrines  of  religion,  pure  and  unadulterat- 
ed from  more  modern  corruptions.    When*  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  16th  century,  the  Portuguese  arrived 
in  India,  they  found  upwards  of  a  hundred  churches 
on  the  coast  of  Malabar.     They  immediately  claimed 
these  churches  as  belonging  to  the  Pope:  but  the  an- 
swer was,   "  Who  is  the  Pope  ?   Ave   never  heard   of 
him."     "  We,"  said  they,  "  are  of  the  true  faith,  what- 
ever you   from   the  West  may  be,  for  we  come  from 
the  place,  where   the  followers  of  Christ  were  first 
called  Christians."     They  came,  indeed,  from  Syria, 
while  churches  founded  by  the  apostles  were  flourish- 
ing in  that  country,  and  boasted  of  enjoying,  for  1,300 
years  past,  a  succession  of  Bishops,  appointed  by  the 
patriarch  of  Antioch.     The  Portuguese  soon  perceiv- 
ed,   how    formidable    these    churches    might    prove 
against  many  of  their  doctrines  and  superstitious  ob- 
servances.     They  invaded   these   harmless   people, 
and  lighted   up  against   the  refractory  the  flames  of 
the  inquisition.     A   compulsory  synod  was  held,  at 
which  150  of  the  Syrian  clergy  appeared,  where  they 
were  accused  of  the  following  practices  and  opinions: 
"  That  they  had  married  wives  ;  that  they  owned  but 
two  sacraments,  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper;  that 
they  neither  invoked  saints,  nor  worshipped  images, 
nor    believed   in   purgatory ;  and   that  they  had   no 
other  orders,  or  names  of  dignity  in  the  church,  than 
Bishop,  Priest,  and   Deacon."     These  tenets,    they 
were  called  on  to  abjure,  or  to  suffer  suspension  from 
all  church  benefices.     It  was  also  decreed,   that   all 
the  Syrian  books  on  ecclesiastical  subjects,  that  could 
be  found,  should  be  burned;   u  in  order,"  said  the  in- 
quisitors, "  that  no  pretended  apostolical  monument* 


49 

may  remain."  (See  Buchanan's  Christian  Researches  in 
India,  p.  149.)  "  The  doctrines  of  the  Syrian  church- 
es," says  this  apostolic  and  learned  man,  (p.  159.) 
"  are  few  in  number,  but  pure,  and  agree  in  essential 
points  with  those  of  the  church  of  England." 

"  Here  is  a  fact,  a  clear,  unquestionable,  historical 
fact,  that  sets  all  the  Doctor's  sophistry  at  defiance. 
Here  is  a  branch  of  the  primitive  apostolic  church, 
subsisting  uncorrupted  through  a  long  series  of  ages, 
and  miraculously  preserved  as  a  living  witness,  that 
neither  the  head,  nor  many  doctrines  of  the  present 
church  of  Rome,  were  known  to  antiquity.  The  can- 
did attention  of  Roman  Catholics,  is  confidently  in- 
vited to  this  fact,  for  it  appears  of  sufficient  weight  to 
silence  every  cavil  on  the  subject,  and  to  render  per- 
fectly nugatory,  the  very  tedious  train  of  sophistical 
reasonings,  with  which  the  Doctor  concludes  his  book. 
I  say,  his  arguments  all  vanish  before  this  luminous 
fact;  for  it  is  incumbent  on  him  to  prove,  that  either 
through  a  long  lapse  of  ages,  these  churches  held  the 
discriminating  doctrines  and  discipline  of  his  church, 
or,  that,  at  the  period  of  their  emigration,  they  were 
no  churches  at  all.  Now,  the  facts  mentioned  by  Dr. 
Buchanan,  refute  both  these  suppositions.  They 
were,  undoubtedly,  sound  and  lively  branches  of  the 
Catholic  church.  They  claimed  no  infallibility,  but 
that  which  they  derived  from  the  Scriptures ;  no  tra- 
ditions, but  such  as  are  evidently  apostolical ;  no 
scriptural  canon,  but  that  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment, which  prevailed  in  the  eastern  churches  when 
they  arrived  in  India,  and  which  is  nearly  the  same 

with  that  of  the   Protestant   churches  at    this  dav. 

j 

For  1,300  years  they  professed  and  experienced  the 


50 

sufficiency  of  the  Holy  Scripture  for  salvation,  as  the  sixth 
article  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  expresses 
it. 

Against  this  article,  the  Doctor  puts  forth  all  his 
skill,  and  calls  up,  through  several  pages,  (146,  &c.,) 
all  his  resources  of  polemical  sophistry:  resources, 
which  have  a  thousand  times  been  proved  empty  and 
futile,  but  which,  notwithstanding,  it  is  perhaps  expe- 
dient briefly  to  notice  in  this  place.  This  notice, 
however,  can  be  nothing  more  than  a  further  illustra- 
tion of  the  argument  in  the  Short  Answer,  (p.  110.) 
which  the  Doctor  embarrasses,  but  does  not  confute. 
He  tells  us,  that,  in  forming  our  religious  faith,  we  are 
not  u  to  convince  ourselves,  in  the  first  instance,  that 
the  Scriptures  are  inspired  by  Almighty  God,  and 
consequently  possess  a  plenary  authority ;  and  that 
then  we  are  to  believe  the  doctrines  which  they  con- 
tain, because  they  are  revealed."  All  this  the  Doc- 
tor denies  :  but,  can  he  show  how  faith  can  be  produ- 
ced in  any  other  way?  Can  it  be  founded  on  any 
thing  but  the  veracity  of  God,  as  its  formal  and  ulti- 
mate motive,  and  the  rational  conviction  that  God  has 
revealed  his  will  to  man  ?  "  But,"  says  the  Doctor, 
"  every  man  is  bound  to  believe  the  articles  of  his 
faith,  with  an  entire  certainty  of  their  being  revealed 
by  God."  This  belief,  he  calls  "  an  act  of  faith,  to- 
tally distinct  from  opinion,  moral  certainty,  and  every 
persuasion,  which  admits  of  doubt,  hesitation,  or  pos- 
sibility of  being  mistaken."  (p.  147.)  This  is  the 
groundwork  of  all  his  following  reasonings,  in  favour 
of  an  infallible  authority  in  his  church.  If  once  sub- 
verted, the  whole  fabric  tumbles  together.  Now,  this 
can   easily  be  done,  for  what  is  an  act  of  religious 


51 

faith,  but  a  belief  of  a  religious  doctrine,  because 
God  has  revealed  it,  who  can  neither  deceive  nor  be 
deceived.  But,  how  are  we  to  know  that  God  has 
revealed  it  ?  "  Because,"  says  the  Doctor,  "  my 
infallible  church  has  decreed  that  he  has  done  so." 
But  how  shall  I  know,  rejoins  the  person  who  is  in- 
structed, either  that  your  church  is  infallible,  or  that 
she  has  made  such  a  decree  ?  "  Because,"  says  Dr. 
O'Gallagher,  "  /solemnly  assure  you,  that  this  infal- 
libility is  revealed  in  the  Scriptures,  and  these  decrees 
have  been  made  by  popes  and  councils."  Thus,  the 
Roman  Catholic  acquiesces  ultimately  in  the  authori- 
ty of  his  teacher,  while  the  Protestant  "  searches  the 
Scriptures,  as  he  is  commanded,  in  order  to  examine 
if  these  things  be  so."  They  both  believe  the  doc- 
trine, because  God  has  revealed  it;  but  supposing 
each  incapable  of  close  and  deep  investigation,  the 
first  is  referred  by  a  fallible  priest  to  an  infallible 
church,  and  the  latter  by  his  fallible  teacher  to  the 
acknowledged  oracles  of  God.  Which  of  the  two 
will  feel  most  secure,  let  the  reader  determine. 
When,  therefore,  the  Doctor  asserts,  "  The  Scrip- 
tures contain  a  revelation  from  God,  and  of  course 
their  doctrines  are  articles  of  Christian  faith;"  the 
first  of  these  propositions  must  be  previously  establish- 
ed by  the  deductions  of  reason,  founded  either  on  ac- 
tual investigation,  or  satisfactory  authority,  before  the 
second  can  be  admitted,  and  become  an  act  of  faith. 
A  firm  and  rational  conviction  that  a  doctrine  is  re- 
vealed in  the  word  of  God,  is  sufficient  to  elevate  it 
to  an  object  of  our  faith ;  but  still  it  remains  to  be 
proved  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God,  and 


52 

his  infallible  oracles.  This  can  only  be  done  by  their 
own  intrinsic  excellence,  and  the  collateral  arguments 
adduced  for  this  purpose.  These  indeed  are  unan- 
swerable, but  they  are  not  articles  of  faith,  but  only 
motives  of  believing.  Now,  motives  for  believing  a 
fact  cannot  be  belief  itself,  or  an  act  of  religious  faith. 
All,  therefore,  except  those  who  delight  in  cavilling, 
will  readily  understand  the  meaning  of  the  above- 
mentioned  article  to  be  nothing  more  than  that  all  the 
divine  truths,  which  Christ  revealed  to  his  apostles, 
and  which  they  delivered  to  the  churches,  are  con- 
tained in  the  Scriptures;  in  other  words,  all  the  ma- 
terial objects  of  our  faith,  .of  which  the  Scripture  is 
not  one,  but  only  the  means  of  conveying  them  unto 
us;  which  we  believe  not  ultimately,  and  on  its  own 
account,  but  on  account  of  the  matter  contained  in  it. 
So  that,  if  we  should  believe  the  doctrines  of  the 
Scripture,  and  live  accordingly,  our  salvation  would 
not  be  affected,  even  if  we  were  ignorant  of  the  ex- 
istence of  any  Scripture  whatever.  The  end  pro- 
posed by  the  Almighty  is  the  belief  of  the  gospel,  the 
covenant  between  him  and  man ;  God  has  provided 
the  Scripture  as  a  mean  for  this  end,  and  this  we  must 
believe,  not  as  the  ultimate  object  of  our  faith,  but  as 
its  instrument  only.  It  follows,  then,  from  what  has 
been  said,  and  from  much  more  that  might  readily  be 
said  on  this  subject,  that  the  Protestant  grounds  his 
faith  upon  the  veracity  of  God,  and  so  far  possesses 
an  infallible  assurance  that  it  is  sound  and  divine. 
He  wants  no  living,  unerring  interpreter,  to  inform 
him  what  doctrines  are  contained  in  the  Scriptures; 
he  discovers  them  himself,  written  in  as  plain  and  in- 
telligible language  as  any  pope  or  councils  can  em- 


53 

ploy;  and  which  he  is  satisfied  to  learn  from  pious, 
intelligent,  and  confidential  instructors,  fully  as  com- 
petent, he  conceives,  to  teach  and  demonstrate  what 
are  scriptural  doctrines,  as  the  highest  pretenders  to 
infallible  decisions.  Is  any  infallible  tribunal  necessa- 
ry to  ascertain  the  articles  of  the  apostles'  creed,  the 
great  doctrines  of  man's  fall  and  redemption,  the  in- 
fluences of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  other  essential  tenets 
of  the  Catholic  church,  which  she  always  professed  to 
receive  on  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures  ?  Now, 
these  being  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
the  Protestant  requires  no  living  authority  to  assure 
him  that  they  are  contained  in  his  Bible :  he  has  only 
to  open  it  to  find  them  there ;  and  when  he  learns, 
moreover,  that  the  universal  church  has  always  re- 
ceived them,  he  endeavours  to  excite  in  his  heart  such 
teachable  dispositions  as,  with  the  grace  of  God, 
eventuate  in  unwavering  faith  and  assurance.  The 
Doctor,  probably,  never  attended  a  pious  Protestant 
on  his  dying  bed;  but  he  may  be  assured,  that  never 
was  any  uneasiness  felt  or  expressed,  with  regard  to 
his  faith  being  grounded  on  the  Scriptures  alone:  a 
few  appropriate  passages  from  these  divine  oracles 
compose  and  animate  his  departing  spirit,  much  more 
rationally  and  effectually,  than  any  reference  to  the  in- 
tercession of  saints,  or  other  practices,  of  a  church 
self-denominated  infallible,  can  do.  But,  continues 
the  Doctor,  (p.  151.)  "  to  follow  up  Protestant  prin- 
ciples with  consistency,  he  must  learn  from  the  Scrip- 
ture itself  what  books  of  the  Holy  Bible  are  divinely 
inspired,  and  what  is  the  true  canon  thereof."  The 
fallacy  of  the  first  part  of  this  position  has  already 
been  shown,  and,  as  to  the  canon  of  the  Scripture,  no 

8 


54 

infallibility  is  requisite  to  ascertain  it.  Protestants 
admit  their  canon  of  the  Scripture  upon  the  credibili- 
ty of  universal  tradition,  not  upon  the  authority  of  any 
particular  church;  and  it  might  readily  be  proved, 
that  of  the  authority  of  the  canon  of  Scripture,  gene- 
rally adopted  by  Protestants,  there  never  was  any 
doubt  in  the  Catholic  church.  But,  supposing  we 
should  submit  in  this,  and  all  other  points,  to  the  deci- 
sion of  the  Roman  church,  how  could  she  assure  us 
that  we  should  not  be  misled  ?  She  pretends,  indeed, 
to  infallibility;  but  how  can  she  convince  us  that  she 
possesses  it?  Will  it  be  from  Scripture  ?  That,_says 
the  Doctor,  cannot  assure  us  of  its  own  infallibility, 
and,  therefore,  not  of  his  church's.  Will  it  be  from 
reason  ?  That,  surely,  may  deceive  us  in  other  things ; 
and  why  not  in  this  ?  How  then  will  she  convince 
us?  by  saying  so.  But  of  this  very  affirmation,  the 
same  question  will  return,  How  can  it  prove  itself  to 
be  infallibly  true  ?  So  that  there  can  be  no  end  of 
multiplying  such  questions,  until  we  can  rest  upon 
something  self-evident,  which  demonstrates  to  the 
wprld  that  this  church  is  infallible.  Now,  since  no 
such  rock  can  be  found,  on  which  to  build  this  mighty 
claim,  it  must  of  necessity,  like  the  island  of  Delos, 
float  up  and  down  for  ever;  and  yet  upon  this  point, 
according  to  Roman  Catholics,  all  other  controversies 
of  faith  depend. 

Wherefore,  the  Doctor  needed  not  to  urge  any  rea- 
son to  prove,  "  that  questions  about  Scripture  are 
not  to  be  decided  by  Scripture  :"  it  is  a  self-evident 
proposition,  and  readily  granted :  but  the  corollary 
which  he  infers  from  it,  that  "  therefore  they  are  to 
be  decided  by  his,  or  any  visible  church,  is  an  illogi- 


55 

cal  conclusion,  much  like  that  of  the  sophist,  who, 
because  Pamphilus  was  not  to  have  Glyariam  for  his 
wife,  concluded  that  he  must  have  her  himself:   as  if 
there  had  been  no  more  men  in  the  world  but  he  and 
Pamphilus.     So,   the  Doctor,  having  concluded   that 
such  questions  could  not  be  settled  by  Scripture,  ap- 
peals to  his  infallible  church,  as  the  only  authority  re- 
maining.    But   the   truth  is,  neither  the  one,  nor  the 
other,  has  any  thing  to  do  with  this  matter.     For  the 
question,  "  whether  such  or  such  a  book  be  canonical 
Scripture,"   although  it  may  be  decided  negatively 
out  of  Scripture,  by  showing  apparent  and  irrecon- 
cileable  contradictions   between  it    and  some   other 
book  confessedly  canonical,  yet  affirmatively  it  cannot 
be,  except  by  the  concurrent  testimony  of  the  ancient 
churches.     "  But  Protestants,"  says  the  Doctor,  (p. 
152.)   "have  excluded  several  books  from  the  canon 
of  Scripture,"  which  are  made  part  of  it  by  the  coun- 
cil of  Trent.     He   then  enumerates   these   books,  of 
all  which,  it  would  be  easy  to  prove,  that  doubts  ex- 
isted in  the  ancient  church.     In  every   learned  com- 
mentator,  the  reader  will  find  these  proofs;   so  that 
the  sacrilegious  cheat,  Luther,  (p.  153.)   and   all   the 
Protestant  churches,  whom  the  Doctor  classes  with  the 
Old  Manicheans,  are  reprobated   for   not   admitting 
many  books  as  canonical,  which  were  deemed  apo- 
cryphal  by  the   primitive  fathers.     Did  not,   for  in- 
stance, Melito,  Athanasius,  and  Gregory  Nanzianzen, 
exclude   the   book   of  Esther  from  the  canon  :    why 
then  was  Luther  more  guilty  than  they?     Many  si- 
milar instances  might  readily  be  alleged,  which,   for 
brevity's   sake,    are   omitted.     Protestants   then  re- 
ceive all  the  books  as  canonical,  which  were  alwavs 


56 

deemed  such  by  the  ancient  church.  But,  the  Doc- 
tor will  say,  "  is  not  this  to  make  the  church  a  judge 
in  this  matter?"  It  certainly  is  so,  but  not  the  pre- 
sent church,  much  less  the  present  Roman  church, 
but  the  general  consent  of  the  ancient  and  primitive 
church  of  Christ.  The  Doctor  will  not  pretend,  that 
any  Scriptures,  retained  as  canonical  by  Protestants, 
for  instance,  by  the  church  of  England,  are  not  ca- 
nonical. He  will  not  allow,  that  the  infallibility  of 
his  church,  and  all  her  discriminating  doctrines,  can- 
not be  proved  from  these  Scriptures;  why  then  is  he 
so  angry  at  others  being  omitted,  which  never  had 
the  sanction  of  the  universal  church,  and  without 
which  all  necessary  articles  of  Christianity  may  be 
known  ?  The  book  of  Maccabees,  indeed,  is  deemed 
canonical  in  the  Roman  church,  as  favouring  the  doc- 
trine of  purgatory ;  but  the  very  learned  Lyranus,* 
and  many  other  Roman  Catholic  doctors,  consider  it 
as  apocryphal,  and  so  did  several  ancient  writers. 

The  Doctor  passes  from  "  the  determination  of  the 
canon  of  the  Scriptures,  to  the  consideration  and  stu- 
dy of  the  books  themselves;"  (p.  158.)  and  here  he 
indulges  himself  in  a  vein  of  obloquy  and  sophistry, 
that  is  really  surprising.  He  asserts,  that  the  Ger- 
man translation  of  the  New  Testament,  by  Luther, 
corrupts  more  than  a  thousand  places  in  the  New 
Testament  alone  :  among  others,  (and  this  is  probably 
selected  as  the  most  material,)  he  quotes  Rom.  hi. 
28.  "  A  man  is  justified  by  faith :"  Luther  adds  to  the 
text  a  word,  and  makes  it  faith  alone.  "  Other  in- 
stances," says  he,  "  are  unnecessary :"  and  so  indeed 

*  Among  others,  Gregory  the  Great  did  not  hold  this  book  to  be  a  ca- 
nonical Scripture.    Mor.  lib.  19.  e.  13. 


57 

they  are,  if  this  be  the  most  flagrant,  for  Luther  adds 
nothing  to  the  important  or  evangelical  tenet  deli- 
vered in  the  text,  that  man  is  really  justified  by  faith 
alone;  for  the  whole  verse  is,  "Therefore  we  con- 
clude that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith,  without  the 
deeds  of  the  law ;" — surely,  then,  "  by  faith  alone." 
The  fact,  however,  is,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  corruptions  and  falsifications  with  which  the  Doc- 
tor charges  Luther,  and  other  Protestant  translators; 
and  these  charges  may  be  readily  retorted  upon 
Lyranus,  or  Lucas  Brugensis,  or  Laurentius  Valla, 
or  Cajetan,  or  many  others,  who  have  committed  pal- 
pable errors  in  their  several  translations.  "  Now, 
let  me  ask,"  says  the  Doctor,  "  from  which  of  those 
translations  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  a  sincere  and  in- 
telligent Protestant  can  derive  an  infallible  certainty 
of  the  divine  revelation  of  the  doctrines  apparently 
expressed  in  them?"  (p.  155.)  The  answer  is,  he 
derives  his  certainty  from  arguments  applicable  to 
them  all,  for  all  of  them,  I  believe,  express  the  great 
doctrines  of  religion  ;  and,  if  they  do  not,  they  must 
be  rejected  as  heretical.  The  Doctor  possibly  might 
not  have  perceived,  that  his  question  would  involve 
him  in  considerable  difficulty;  for  it  may  be  asked 
with  equal  propriety,  which,  among  the  various  trans- 
lations in  the  primitive  church,  the  fathers  and  doc- 
tors were  to  adopt.  Let  us  hear  St.  Augustin,  lib.  2. 
dc  Chris,  doc.  cap.  II.  "  They  who  have  translated 
the  Scriptures  out  of  the  Hebrew  into  Greek,  may 
be  numbered ;  but  the  Latin  interpreters  are  innu- 
merable :  for,  whensoever  any  one,  in  the  first  times 
of  Christianity,  met  with  a  Greek  Bible,  and  seemed 
to  himself  to  have  some  skill  in  both  languages,  he 


presently  ventured  upon  an  interpretation,"  or  trans- 
lation :  of  all  these,  that  which  was  called  the  Italian 
was  esteemed  the  best;  as  St.  Austin  assures  us : 
(ibid.  chap.  15.)  "  Among  all  these  interpretations,*' 
says  he,  "  let  the  Italian  be  preferred."  Yet,  so  far 
was  the  church  at  that  day  from  presuming  upon  the 
absolute  purity  and  perfection  of  even  this  best  trans- 
lation, that  St.  Jerom  thought  it  necessary  to  make  a 
new  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  from  the  He- 
brew, and  to  correct  the  vulgar  version  of  the  New. 
from  the  original  Greek.  {See  lib.  de  Viris.  illustribus.") 
This  work  he  undertook  and  performed,  at  the  re- 
quest of  Damasus,  Bishop  of  Rome.  Now,  how  was 
the  sincere  Christian  to  discover  Scripture  truth,  from 
all  this  variety  of  versions,  or  where,  all  this  while, 
was  the  infallible  authority  to  point  out  to  him,  which 
version  contained  the  orthodox  tenets  of  religion? 
It  was  silent,  it  was.  unknown,  and,  if  unnecessary  at 
that  period,  is  unnecessary  still,  and,  therefore,  in  this 
matter,  Protestants  must  either  stand  or  fall  with  the 
primitive  church. 

It  was  expected,  that  something  would  be  said  of 
the  Vulgate  in  this  place,  but  the  Doctor  has  very 
prudently  omitted  any  mention  of  this  standard  ver- 
sion of  his  church.  He  well  knows  that  it  abounds 
with  erroneous  translations :  the  departure  from  the 
original,  at  the  15th  verse  of  the  third  chap,  of  Gene- 
sis, where  the  important  promise  of  a  Redeemer  is  ge- 
nerally supposed  to  be  expressed,  and  where  the  Vul- 
gate has  it,  "  ipsa  conteret  caput  tuum,"  "  she  (in- 
stead of  it,  or  he)  shall  bruise  thy  head,  is  one  among 
the  many  mistakes  that  could  be  selected  from  this 
version."     Nay,  its  warmest  advocates  allow,  that 


59 

*'  it  is  impossible  to  discern  which  is  the  true  reading 
of  the  vulgar  edition,  but  by  having  recourse  to  the 
originals,  and  dependence  upon  them."  (Bell,  de 
verbo  Dei.  lib.  2.  c.  11.)  And  Fr.  Laynes,  the  general 
of  the  Jesuits,  who  was  present  at  the  council  of 
Trent,  and  took  a  leading  part  in  all  its  deliberations, 
expressly  tells  us,  (Pro.  Edit.  Vulg.  c.  21.  p.  99.)  that, 
"  If  the  council  had  purposed  to  approve  an  edition  in 
all  respects,  and  to  make  it  of  equal  credit  and  autho- 
rity with  the  fountains,  certainly  they  ought,  with  ex- 
act care,  first  to  have  corrected  the  errors  of  the  in- 
terpreter." Yet  this  was  what  they  did  not,  and 
thus  omitted  a  favourable  opportunity  of  creating  in 
the  minds  of  the  faithful  "  an  assurance  of  the  true 
Scriptures,"  which  the  Doctor  contends  can  only  be 
done  by  having  recourse  to  his  church.  But  of  what 
service  was  her  claim  to  infallibility,  when  she  suffer- 
ed whole  books  of  Scripture  to  be  utterly  lost,  and  the 
originals  of  those  that  remain  to  be  corrupted. 

From  this  train  of  reasoning,  which  is  reluctantly 
repeated,  in  order  to  meet  the  Doctor's  sophistry, 
continually  recurring  in  a  hundred  different  shapes, 
it  will  readily  be  perceived,  that  the  three  proposi- 
tions, which  he  lays  down  as  "  the  foundation,  plan, 
and  rule  of  the  Protestant  creed  and  faith,"  (p.  159.) 
are  combated  with  the  weapons  of  errant  sophistry 
and  polemical  chicanery.  The  first  proposition  is, 
"  that,  in  his  last  religious  inquiry,  the  first  instruction 
the  Protestant  receives  from  his  teacher  is  this,  "  that 
the  Scriptures  alone  contain  every  article  of  the 
Christian  faith ;"  and  a  very  wise  instruction  it  is, 
whether  such  a  Protestant  be  competent  to  examine 
the  Scriptures  or  not.     In  the  first  supposition  he  is 


60 

referred  to  them ;  in  the  second,  he  must  rely  for  his 
motives  in  believing  the  Scriptures  to  be  God's  word, 
on  the  learning  and  integrity  of  his  authorized  teach- 
er, whom  God  commands  him  to  hear  as  his  appointed 
minister,  and  whose  doctrines  he  can  readily  compare 
"with  those  of  the  Christian  church  in  general.  Now, 
how  will  the  Doctor  adopt  any  other  mode  of  instruc- 
tion ?  How  will  he  convince  his  pupil  that  the  Scrip- 
tures alone  do  not  contain  every  article  of  faith  ? 
Will  he  not  refer  him  to  his  unerring  church,  and  tell 
him  that  she  teaches  many  articles  not  to  be  found  in 
Scripture  alone?  Here  is  a  dilemma,  on  one  of  the 
horns  of  which  the  Doctor  must  be  tossed.  He  must 
either  acknowledge  that  every  article  of  faith  is  con- 
tained in  the  Scriptures,  or  that  his  doctrines  of  pur- 
gatory, confession,  transubstantiation,  &c.  &c.  are  not 
to  be  found  in  them.  If  this  latter  be  the  case,  why 
appeal  to  the  Scriptures  for  the  truth  of  these  doc- 
trines ;  if  it  be  not,  then  it  is  clear  that  all  the  arti- 
cles of  the  Doctor's  faith  are  contained  in  them. 
But,  adds  he,  Scripture  does  not  teach  us  that  it 
contains  every  article  of  faith ;  nor  does  it  teach 
that  "  no  doctrine  is  to  be  received  as  divinely  re- 
vealed which  is  not  expressly  contained  in  it." 
Quo  teneam  vultus  mutantem  Protea  nodo  ?  How 
often  must  we  repeat,  that,  provided  we  be  assured 
from  other  sources,  from  which  moral  certitude  can 
be  derived,  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God, 
no  assertions  of  their  own,  are  necessary  in  the  first 
instance,  because  these,  being  part  of  them,  cannot  be 
proved  satisfactory  from  themselves :  but  when  once 
demonstrated,  by  arguments  drawn  from  any  source 
whatever,  to  be  the  oracles  of  truth,  they  then  be- 


61 

tome  solid  foundations  of  our  Christian  faith.  This 
source,  the  Doctor  contends,  is  his  infallible  church ; 
without  her,  we  cannot  believe,  with  a  divine  faith,  that 
the  Scriptures  are  God's  word.  But  where  is  this 
infallibility,  this  tenet  of  his  church,  to  be  found  ?  He 
will  answer,  in  the  Scriptures.  But  these  do  not  con- 
tain every  article  of  Christian  faith;  and,  therefore, 
possibly  not  this  tenet  of  infallibility  among  the  rest; 
so  that,  after  all,  the  assurance  of  the  Scriptures  be- 
ing a  divine  revelation,  is  as  much  an  act  of  religious 
faith  with  the  Protestant  as  the  Romanist.  The  two 
churches,  then,  though  from  different  motives  of  cre- 
dibility, and  different  sanctions,  finally  agree  in  con- 
fessing the  divinity  of  the  Scriptures :  this  point  once 
established,  whatever  they  afterwards  declare  of 
themselves  becomes  an  article  of  our  belief.  The 
Doctor  contends,  that  in  no  passage  in  Scripture, 
"  from  the  first  of  Genesis  to  the  last  of  Revelations, 
can  be  discovered  even  one  of  the  above-mentioned 
propositions:"  (p.  158.)  though,  indeed,  if  the  first  of 
them  be  there,  the  other  two  must  necessarily  follow ; 
for  nothing  can  be  more  evident  than  this  conclusion, 
that  "  if  the  Scriptures  alone  contain  all  the  articles 
of  Christian  faith,  none  but  such  articles  can  be  re- 
ceived as  divinely  revealed ;  and  that  from  the  Scrip- 
ture alone,  every  sincere  inquirer  may  derive  all  the 
articles  of  his  faith."  The  two  last  inferences  are 
perfectly  superfluous.  To  prove  the  Protestant  prin- 
ciple, "  to  wit,  that  each  individual  should  (rather  say 
can)  discover  and  ascertain  all  the  articles  of  his 
faith  by  his  own  personal  examination  and  discussion 
of  the  Scriptures,"  three  texts,  says  the  Doctor,  are 
usually   alleged.     In  this  statement  of  the  matter, 

9 


62 

there  is  a  palpable,  I  will  not  say  a  wilful,  misrepre- 
sentation. It  is  intimated,  that  "  each  individual  Pro- 
testant is  obliged  to  discover  and  ascertain  all  the  ar- 
ticles of  his  faith,  by  his  own  personal  examination 
and  discussion  of  the  Scriptures."  It  is  not  necessary 
to  repeat  the  refutation  of  this  obstinate  sophism. 
Let  us  proceed  to  the  three  texts  in  question :  if  care- 
fully examined,  they  evidently  countenance  the  Pro- 
testant rule  of  faith ;  but  the  Doctor  has  omitted 
others,  which  positively  establish  it.  In  "  reading 
the  Scriptures,  from  the  first  of  Genesis  to  the  last  of 
Revelations,"  how  can  we  account  for  the  following 
text  having  escaped  his  notice  ?  "  But  continue  thou 
in  the  things  which  thou  hast  learned,  and  hast  been 
assured  of,  knowing  of  whom  thou  hast  learned  them." 
(2  Tim.  iii.  14.)  Here  the  apostle  points  out  from 
whom  his  pupil  had  received  the  assurance  of  the 
Scriptures ;  evidently  not  from  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves. Then,  verses  15,  16,  and  17,  he  continues: 
4*  And  that  from  a  child  thou  hast  known  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  which  are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto 
salvation,  through  faith,  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus. 
All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is 
profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for 
instruction  in  righteousness;  that  the  man  of  God  may 
be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works." 
This  text  wants  no  comment;  it  establishes,  without 
a  doubt,  the  full  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures  for  every 
purpose  of  Christian  doctrine  and  Christian  morality; 
it  supersedes  the  necessity  of  mentioning  other  Scrip- 
ture declarations  to  the  same  effect,  and  utterly  anni- 
hilates the  cavils  of  the  Doctor,  in  pages  159,  and  the 
two  following,  of  his  Reply.     When,  therefore,  the 


63 

Doctor  argues,  that  unlearned  and  ignorant  men  can- 
not understand  the  Scriptures,  we  should  be  glad  to 
know  whether  he  means  all,  or  any  Scriptures  what- 
ever, or,  whether  he  means  they  cannot  understand 
them  sufficiently,  either  from  their  own  investigation, 
or  from  the  faithful  preaching  of  the  gospel,  to  "  make 
them  wise  unto  salvation:"  if  the  first,  the  most 
learned  are  in  the  same  situation :  if  the  second* 
daily  experience  will  confute  him;  for,  in  the  usual 
distribution  of  intellectual  blessings,  every  person  can 
understand  the  story,  the  precepts,  the  promises  and 
threats  of  the  gospel :  if  the  third,  the  above  text 
most  positively  contradicts  him;  so  that  we  may 
safely  conclude,  with  St.  Austin,  "  Ea  quae  manifeste 
posita  sunt  in  sacris  Scripturis,  omnia  continent,  quae 
pertinent  ad  fidem,  moresque  vivendi."*  Whatsoever 
things  are  clearly  set  down  in  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
contain  all  things  appertaining  to  faith  and  moral 
conduct. 

44  But,"  says  the  Doctor*  (p.  161.)  "I  go  farther, 
and  affirm,  that  no  Protestant  doctrine,"  that  is,  as 
he  explains  it,  no  doctrine,  which  distinguishes  Pro- 
testants from  Roman  Catholics,  "  can  be  proved,  or 
maintained  by  Scripture  alone  :"  which  is  merely  say- 
ing, in  other  words,  that  such  doctrines  must  be  false. 
This  opens  the  whole  controversy  between  the 
churches  anew ;  for  a  Protestant  is  equally  authori- 
zed to  say,  that  the  discriminating  doctrines  of  the 
Roman  church  cannot  be  proved  from  Scripture,  or 
otherwise.  The  Doctor  has  not  probably  remember- 
ed, in  prosecuting  this  argument,  how  unnecessary  it 

*  S'ee  many  other  texts  to  the  same  purpose,  p.  115  et  seq.  Short  Amwu 


64 

is  to  prove  a  negative,  when  an  opposite  truth  can 
be  clearly  demonstrated.  If  it  be  shown,  that  the 
three  angles  of  a  triangle  be  equal  to  two  right  an- 
gles, will  it  be  necessary  to  prove  that  they  are  not 
equal  to  four  ?  If  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  be  pro- 
ved from  the  Scriptures,  will  it  be  necessary  to  de- 
monstrate the  falsity  of  polytheism  ?  And  here  the 
Doctor  indulges  his  usual  propensity  to  quibble :  he 
says,  for  instance,  (p.  162.)  that  the  Protestant  tenet  is, 
"  the  church  of  Christ  is  fallible,  and  subject  to  errors 
in  point  of  faith."  Now,  the  Protestant  tenet  is  no 
such  thing ;  it  merely  asserts,  that  particular  churches 
are  fallible,  and  subject  to  error ;  that  in  fact,  many 
have  been  destroyed  by  adopting  fundamental  errors, 
and  that  none  are  secure  from  sharing  their  fate,  but 
such  as  adhere  to  the  foundations  of  truth,  delivered  in 
the  Scriptures,  against  which  alone,  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  never  prevail.  It  is  not  necessary,  therefore,  for 
"  the  Protestant  divine,  to  lay  his  finger  on  any  par- 
ticular text,  expressing  the  church  of  Christ  to  be  fal- 
lible, and  subject  to  error,"  (p.  163.)  but  merely  to 
show  that  some  particular  church  has  erred,  and  is 
therefore  subject  to  error.  With  respect  to  the 
church  of  Rome,  this  has  been  abundantly  shown. 
Suppose  the  Doctor  should  be  asked,  how  he  proves 
that  the  Roman  church  is  the  mother  and  mistress  of  all 
churches,  {See  Pope  Piuses  creed.)  Would  he  not  have 
recourse  to  the  text,  "  Thou  art  Peter,"  &c,  and  to 
others  of  the  same  tendency  ?  "  But  no,"  says  a 
Protestant,  "  the  church  of  Jerusalem  was  the  mother 
of  all  churches."  Now,  how  can  this  assertion  be  re- 
futed, but  by  showing  either  that  the  Scripture  teach- 
es the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  church,  or  that  she 


65 

declares  herself  to  be  supreme  ?  The  reader  will 
therefore  see  the  fallacy  of  the  Doctor's  argument. 
It  is  equally  evident  in  what  he  says  of  purgatory,  (p. 
1C4,  &c.)  M  The  Scripture,"  says  he,  "  nowhere  teach- 
es that  there  is  no  purgatory :"  therefore,  this  Pro- 
testant doctrine  is  unscriptural,  and  oversets  the  Pro- 
testant rule  of  faith.  But  let  it  be  asked,  how  the 
Scriptures  could  say  any  thing  on  a  question,  which 
had  never  been  agitated  when  the  Scriptures  were 
written  ?  The  word  of  God  deals  not  with  chimeras. 
As  well  might  it  be  said,  that  the  metempsycosis  of 
Pythagoras,  or  the  craniology  of  Dr.  Gall,  cannot  be 
refuted  by  the  Scriptures.  The  idea,  indeed,  of  a 
state  between  final  happiness  and  misery,  furnished 
matter  for  poetical  fiction,  but  could  never  have  gain- 
ed admission  into  a  system  founded  upon  a  full,  "  per- 
fect, and  sufficient  sacrifice,  oblation,  and  satisfaction 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world." 

As  to  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  which  the 
Doctor  alleges  as  another  irresistible  argument  in  his 
favour,  it  cannot  surely  be  refuted  explicitly  from  the 
Bible;  because  the  writers  of  the  Bible  knew  nothing 
about  it.  The  word  with  them  could  have  carried 
no  meaning,  of  course  not  that  of  its  modern  advo- 
cates. Protestants,  therefore,  do  not  say  that  the  re- 
futation of  this  tenet  is  clearly  contained  in  the  Bible ; 
but  that  the  institution  and  nature  of  the  Lord's  sup- 
per, is  recorded  and  delivered  in  such  terms  as  must 
absolutely  preclude  the  admission  of  this  doctrine. (e) 
Sincerely  is  it  regretted  that  the  Doctor  mentions  this 
tenet  at  all.     At  the  present  day  of  deep  research^ 

(e)  See  notes  at  the  end. 


66 

and  biblical  accuracy,  when  the  human  mind  revolts 
at  any  authority  that  countenances  contradictions, 
•which  the  obvious  use  of  our  senses  is  competent  to 
discover,  it  would  be  gratifying  to  every  liberal  per- 
son, that  as  little  as  possible  should  be  said  on  this 
subject.  The  many  illustrious  members  of  the  Ro- 
man church,  who  have  defended  by  their  writings,  and 
illustrated  in  their  lives,  the  common  doctrines  and 
precepts  of  our  holy  religion,  have  established  a  claim 
to  the  veneration  of  the  writer  of  these  sheets,  which 
he  would  forfeit  with  reluctance,  and  he  is  willing  to 
believe  that  in  refusing  to  examine  impartially  the  ar- 
guments of  Protestant  divines  against  this  tenet  of 
their  church,  they  have  also  overlooked  the  spirit  of 
intolerance,  and  horrid  persecutions  which  have  been 
inflicted  on  mankind,  for  merely  adhering,  in  this  in- 
stance, to  the  testimony  of  their  senses.  The  detail 
of  these  atrocities,  is  too  disgusting  to  repeat,  unless 
it  were  to  create  a  suspicion  in  honest,  though  mis- 
guided minds,  that  a  doctrine,  which  countenances  the 
heresy  of  persecution,  and  has  filled  Christendom 
with  blood,  cannot  descend  from  the  Father  of  mer- 
cies, and  "  the  Giver  of  every  good  gift."  May  I 
presume  to  suggest  to  pious  Roman  Catholics  the 
expression  of  Averroes,  as  the  dictate  of  unsophisti- 
cated reason,  "  Quandoquidam  Christiani  comedunt 
quod  adorant,  sit  anima  me  a  cum  philosophis  :"— ■ 
"  since  Christians  eat  what  they  adore,  let  my  soul  be 
with  the  philosopher's :"  may  I  entreat  them  to  con- 
sider, if  transubstantiation  be  a  fiction,  to  what  a  dan- 
gerous delusion  they  are  exposed  in  adopting  it :  for 
can  any  act  of  idolatry  be  more  explicit,  than  the  ado- 
ration of  a  wafer,  instead  of  the  body,  and  blood,  and 


67 

divinity  of  Christ  ?  Their  own  writers  allow,  there 
cannot.  There  is  a  passage  in  the  first  Epistle  to  the 
Cor.  x.  14,  which  seems  to  indicate  that  some  danger 
of  this  kind  was  communicated  to  the  prophetic  mind 
of  the  apostle:  "Wherefore,  my  dearly  beloved," 
says  he,  "  flee  from  idolatry.  I  speak  unto  wise  men : 
judge  ye  what  I  say.  The  cup  of  blessing  which  we 
bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of  Christ  ? 
The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion 
of  the  body  of  Christ?"  He  says  not,  that  the  cup, 
or  its  contents,  is  the  blood,  or  the  bread  the  body  of 
Christ,  but  only  the  communion,  or  participation  of 
both,  in  all  their  pardoning  and  sanctifying  effects. 

The  seven  concluding  pages  of  the  Doctor's  book, 
containing  little  more  than  a  repetition  of  his  preceding 
arguments  against  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  re- 
quire, of  course,  no  additional  attention.  They  are 
made  up  of  the  same  bold  assertions,  and  sophistical 
reasonings,  which  run  through  all  the  other  parts  of 
his  work.  He  takes  it  for  granted,  that  no  Protest- 
ant community  is  entitled  to  the  venerable  appellation 
of  a  church,  and  therefore,  "Whilst  each  individual 
Protestant,"  says  he,  (p.  171.)  "  fondly  flatters  himself 
that  he  is  a  member  of  some  church,  in  the  unity  of 
some  faith,  and  in  the  communion  of  saints,  expressed 
in  the  apostles'  creed — he  is,  in  fact,  destitute  of  any 
settled  tenets  of  faith,  devoid  of  any  church  to  direct 
and  instruct  him  therein,  deprived  of  any  certain  rule 
or  principle  for  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures, 
delivered  over  to  the  suggestions  of  his  own  weak 
reason,  exposed  to  the  delusions  of  his  own  imagina- 
tion, and  even  to  the  influence  of  his  own  local  preju- 
dices, and  personal  attachments."     Now,  the  precc- 


ding  remarks  will,  I  trust,  be  sufficient  to  put  every 
reader  upon  his  guard,  against  these  dismal  phantoms, 
conjured  up  by  the  Doctor  to  frighten  weak  and  un- 
tutored minds :  in  them  he  will  perceive  the  efficacy 
of  the  Scriptures  "  to  make  us  wise  unto  salvation," 
and  to  enable  us  "  to  know  of  the  doctrine,  whether 
it  be  of  God,  if  we  do  his  will :"  he  will  clearly 
understand,  that  by  no  other  means  can  a  man  con- 
vince himself  that  religious  truth  is  delivered  in  the 
Scriptures,  than  by  the  exercise  of  his  reason,  in  a 
candid  and  personal  investigation,  or  a  well-founded 
deference  to  the  authority  of  his  teachers :  and  that 
by  these  same  means  only,  can  the  Roman  Catholic 
attain  to  the  persuasion,  that  his  church  is  infallible ; 
unless,  indeed,  in  fixing  the  first  principles  of  his  faith, 
he  deem  it  his  duty,  to  lull  his  reasoning  faculty  asleep, 
in  obedience  to  a  church,  which  claims  an  exemption 
from  all  error,  without  permitting  him  to  investigate 
this  claim.  Wherefore,  if  in  these  circumstances,  if 
in  a  blind  renunciation  of  his  reason,  to  the  imposing 
dictates  of  any  branch  of  the  Catholic  church,  found- 
ed upon  vague  and  uncertain  traditions,  and  palpable 
usurpation,  the  Roman  Catholic  can  flatter  himself 
with  a  complete  security,  and  "  repose  in  conscious 
safety  on  the  bosom  of  his  spiritual  mother,"  how 
much  more  solid  must  be  the  security  of  the  regular 
and  conscientious  member  of  any  other  branch  of  the 
Christian  church,  which  refers  him  exclusively  to  the 
oracles  of  God,  and  teaches  him  to  acquiesce  ultimate- 
ly in  them.  In  complying  with  this  direction,  he  may 
humbly,  yet  confidently  trust,  that  the  same  "  blessed 
Lord  God,  who  has  caused  all  Holy  Scriptures  to  be 
written  for  our  learning,  will  grant,  that  he  may  in 


69 

such  wise  hear  them,  read,  mark,  learn,  and  inward- 
ly digest  them,  that  by  patience  and  comfort  of  his 
holy  word,  he  may  embrace,  and  ever  hold  fast  the 
blessed  hope  of  everlasting  life,  which  has  been  giv- 
en him  in  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ."  (Collect  for  Uh 
Su?i.  in  Advent?)  Such  is  the  divine  source  of  genuine 
consolation  to  every  believer ;  and,  blessed  be  God, 
the  streams  are  now  flowing  copiously  from  it,  which 
are  to  water  the  whole  earth.  Among  every  peo- 
ple, tongue,  and  nation,  their  circulation  is  hailed  with 
rapturous  eagerness  and  joy,  as  the  truth  which  they 
contain,  is  the  only  ground  of  present  comfort  and 
cheering  expectation  of  future  blessedness :  it  is  wel- 
comed by  many  thoughtful  Christians,  as  ushering  in 
that  owe,  holy,  Catholic,  and  Apostolic  church,  which 
they  conceive  to  be  rather  the  future  than  present 
object  of  their  faith :  and  which,  considered  in  this 
light,  would  lessen  some  difficulties  attending  this  ar- 
ticle of  our  belief.  The  Doctor  may  think  as  lightly 
as  he  pleases,  of  these  fountains  of  gospel  security  and 
assurance;  but,  it  it  hoped  that  his  opinions  have  not 
many  advocates  in  America.  Lamentable,  indeed, 
would  be  the  reflection,  that  bigotry  of  any  kind,  no 
longer  able  to  hold  its  ground  in  Europe,  should  find 
an  asylum  in  any  churches  among  us.  The  Doctor 
will  probably  reply,  that  his  opinions  are  those  of  all 
Roman  Catholic  divines.(/)  But,  what  will  he  say  to 
the  following  sentiments,  expressed  in  an  address  of 
a  Roman  Catholic  priest  in  Swabia,  to  the  British  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society,  in  1804?  After  passing  the 
highest  encomiums,  and  warmest  approbation  on  this 

if  )  Sec  notes  at  the  end . 
10 


70 

institution,  lie  rejoices  "at  the  great  number  of  zeal- 
ous  friends  of  the  Bible  in  London,  who  are  filled 
with  the  desire  to  send  out  the  pure  word  of  God,  as 
the  best  preacher,  into  the  world."  He  then  goes  on  to 
explain  the  meaning  of  the  council  of  Trent,  in  prohi- 
biting the  indiscriminate  reading  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  concludes — "  Now,  I  beg  you,  my  dear  brother 
in  Christ,  (meaning  the  Protestant  Secretary  to  the 
Society,  Dr.  Owen,)  to  receive  these  few  lines  in  love 
— I  cannot  express,  in  terms  sufficiently  strong,  the 
fervency  of  my  joy,  and  of  my  love  towards  all  who, 
throughout  England,  heartily  believe  in  Jesus  Christ, 
as  their  only  Saviour,  and  zealously  endeavour  to  ex- 
tend the  Redeemer's  kingdom.  I  embrace  them  all,  as 
the  beloved  and  elect  of  God,  as  friends  and  brethren  in 
Christ,  let  them  be  of  whatever  name,  or  belong  to  what- 
ever church,  or  denomination.'''' — Here  are  sentiments 
truly  becoming  an  enlightened  minister  of  the  gos- 
pel. Nor,  are  those  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Wittman,  Di- 
rector of  the  Ecclesiastical  Seminary  at  Ratisbon, 
where  a  Roman  Catholic  Bible  Society  had  been  es- 
tablished, less  grateful  and  dear  to  every  Christian. 
Tn  an  address  to  the  Roman  Catholics  throughout 
Germany,  in  1805,  peculiarly  simple,  liberal,  and  de- 
vout, he  begins  by  saying,  "  It  is  desirable  that  the 
Holy  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  might  be  put 
into  the  hands  of  many  pious  Christians  at  a  low  price  : 
thereby  they  would  be  comforted  in  their  afflictions, 
strengthened  in  their  trials,  and  better  preserved  from 
the  temptations  of  the  world.  Many  excellent  persons 
do  not  find  in  the  public  religious  instruction,  that,  for 
which  they  hunger :  they  are  also,  often,  in  the  confes- 
sional, only  judged  for  their  outward  deeds,  without 


71 

being  led  to  an  acknowledgment  of  their  inward  cor- 
ruption, and  to  faith  in  the  blood  of  Jesus  their  Re- 
deemer: if  these  could  read  the  Holy  Scriptures  of 
the  New  Testament,  in  the  quiet  time  of  holidays., 
their  faith  in  the  simple  doctrines  from  the  mouth  of 
Jesus  Christ,  would,  by  the  mercy  of  their  Saviour, 
be  thereby  enlivened  ;  and  the  Lord's  gifts  in  the  Holy 
Spirit,  be  quickened  in  them.  They  would  hear  the 
voice  of  the  Father  in  their  inward  part,  drawing 
them  to  their  Saviour,  of  which  Christ  saith,  "  They 
shall  be  all  taught  of  God  ;  and  whosoever  hath  learn- 
ed of  the  Father,  and  received  ft,  cometh  unto  me." 
{John  xi.  14. — German  translation.)  And  he  con- 
cludes a  prayer  with  this  sentiment,  "G  Lord,  Re- 
deemer of  our  souls — if  it  please  thee,  let  thy  holy 
history,  the  history  of  thy  childhood,  of  thy  ministry, 
of  thy  suffering,  and  of  the  victory  in  the  Holy  Spirit, 
in  the  apostles  and  firstlings  of  the  Christian  church, 
come  into  the  hands  of  thy  little  ones,  for  their  com- 
fort and  consolation."  Now,  would  these  good  men 
have  subscribed  to  the  Doctor's  opinion,  that,  in  read- 
ing the  Scriptures,  a  Protestant  cannot  experience 
equal  consolation  and  peace  ? 

But  I  have  done :  solemnly  protesting,  that  on  this, 
as  well  as  on  every  other  occasion,  my  aim  has  been 
to  contend  not  for  victory,  but  for  truth;  not  to  nou- 
rish, but  to  tear  up  the  old  and  baneful  root  of  bitter- 
ness; to  turn  the  attention  of  every  fellow  Christian 
to  those  fundamental  principles  of  our  common  reli- 
gion, which  are  delivered  in  the  Bible ;  to  bring  to 
every  tenet  not  discovered  there,  a  jealous,  candid, 
and  patient  examination  ;  that  all  the  truth  revealed 
by  Almighty  God  may  be  received  and  supported,  in 


Ti 

order  to  promote  all  the  charity  and  godliness  "which 
it  enjoins.  In  dismissing  this  controversy,  the  writer 
of  these  sheets,  however  indignant  may  be  his  feelings 
at  some  of  the  high  pretensions  of  the  Roman  church, 
and  their  direful  consequences,  discards  from  his  bo- 
som every  spark  of  animosity  towards  any  of  her  li- 
beral, pious,  and  enlightened  adherents,  "  who  love 
the  Lord  Jesus  in  sincerity" — Towards  all  such,  he 
would  willingly  adopt  the  language  of  a  Roman  Ca- 
tholic priest,  in  an  animated  address  to  the  British 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  and  pray  that  it  might  be 
universal :  "  United  to  Christ,"  says  he,  "  we  are 
united  to  each  other:  neither  continents,  nor  seas; 
neither  various  forms  of  government,  nor  different 
outward  confessions  of  religion,  can  separate  us  :  all 
things  pass  away — but  love  abideth," 


NOTES. 


Note  (a)  page  10.  Perhaps  the  confidence  of  the  Doctor,  in  this  passage,  will 
be  somewhat  abated,  when  he  finds  several  of  the  ancient  fathers,  and  divines  of 
his  own  church,  interpreting  it  in  the  sense  cotnmonly  adopted1  by  Protestants. 
Thus  St.  Chrysostom ;  "  Christ  says,  super  hanc  Petram,  upon  this  Rock.  lie 
says  not  super  hunc  Pelram  ;  that  is,  upon  this  Peter;  for  Christ  built  his 
church  upon  the  faith,  and  not  upon  the  man,  non  envm  super  liominem,  sed  su~ 
perfidem  edijicabat  eeclesiam.  {Horn,  decruce  Domini.  Horn,  de  Pentecost,  et 
55  in  Matt!)  Hilary,  Gregory  Nyssene,  and  Cyril,  all  declare,  u  That  was 
the  Rock  which  Peter  confessed,  saying  of  Christ,  Thou  art  the  Son  of  God." 
(Sil.  I.  2.  de  Trin.  cap.  6.  Greg.  Nyss.  in  Testimo.  vet.  lest,  de  Trin.  contra 
Judaeos.  Cyril  de  Trin.  lib.  4.)  The  learned  Theophylact  interprets  the  words 
in  the  same  way ;  "  Upon  this  Rock,  meaning  Christ."  (Comment,  in  Matt. 
16.)  Eusebius,  Emissenus,  or,  as  some  think,  Empserius,  are  explicit  on  this 
subject.  Theodoret,  Anselm,  and  others,  are  of  the  same  opinion;  and  as  for 
the  great  St.  Austin,  though  he  sometimes  varies  his  interpretation,  yet,  as  Dr. 
Stapleton,  an  eminent  Roman  Catholic  divine,  acknowledges,  (Doctr.  Princip. 
Controv.  2.  lib.  6.  c.  3.)  "  he  is  inclined  rather  by  the  word  rock,  to  understand 
Christ ;  and  to  conceive  him  saying  to  Peter,  I  will  not  build  me  upon  thee,  but 
thee  upon  me."  The  Latin  is  explicit,  lt  Super  hanc  Petram,  &c.  id  est  super 
hanc  Petram  quam  coufessus  es,  quam  cognovisti,  dicens,  tu  es  Christus  filius 
Dei  vivi,  super  hanc  aedificabo  eeclesiam  meam,  super  me  a^dificabo  te,  non  mc 
super  te."  (Augus.  de  verbo  dom.  secund.  Malt.  serm.  13.)  And  again, 
(Tract.  124.  in  John.)  "  Petra  erat  Christus,  super  quam  ipse  a'dificatus  est 
Petrus;"  "  the  Rock  was  Christ,  upon  which  Peter  was  built."  Of  the  same 
opinion  was  Gregory  the  Great,  bishop  of  Rome,  when  sitting  in  the  very  sup- 
posed chair  of  St.  Peter--"  Christ  himself  is  the  Rock,  from  which  Peter  re- 
ceived his  name."  (Greg,  in  Psal.  Panitent.  in  ilia  verba  Initio  tu  domino, 
&c)  So  that  Calvin  had  good  reason  to  say,  that  it  was  not  from  want  of 
clear  and  ample  testimony  of  antiquity  that  he  objected  to  the  authority  of  the 
fathers  on  this  head,  but  from  fear  of  tiring  his  readers."  (Inst.  lib.  4.  c.  G.) 
Nor  are  the  declarations  of  several  Roman  Catholic  divines  less  explicit  on  this 
head  :  Nicholas  Lyranus,  a  celebrated  expositor  of  the  14th  century ;  Nicholas 
de  Cusa,  commonly  known  by  the  name  of  Cardinal  Cusanus  ;  and  Cardinal 
Hugo,  all  agree  in  asserting,  that  by  the  Rock  in  this  place  is  meant  Christ." 
(Lyr.  in  Matt.  c.  16.)  "  Quanquam  Petro  dictum  est,  tu  es  Petrus,  &c.  tainen 
per  Petram,  Christum,  quern  confessus  est,  intelligimus."  (Cus.  Concord.  Cuth. 
lib.  2.  cap.  13.)  The  learned  Jesuits,  Pererius  and  Salmeron,  interpret  the 
■words  in  the  same  manner  ;  the  first  declaring,  (Comment,  in  Dan.  2.)  "  Christ 
is  that  Rock  upon  which  the  church  is  built ;"  and  the  other  contending,  with 
Ven.  Bede,  that  whenever  the  word  foundation  occurs  in  the  singular  number, 
it  means  Christ  alone."  These  authorities  are  surely  abundantly  sufficient  to 
satisfy  any  reasonable  mind,  and  to  demolish  all  the  Doctor's  arguments  built 
upon  this  passage. 

Note  (6)  page  21.  If  the  Doctor  had  ever  looked  into  the  work  of 
the  learned  Daille  deusu  Patrum,  he  would  have  discovered  there  man\r  opinions 
of  the  fathers,  calculated  to  check  his  implicit  deference  to  their  authority.  To 
instance  only  a  few  of  the  many  that  might  be  mentioned  :  Justin  Martyr  held 
the  millenarian  system ;  and  it  was  for  some  time  regarded  as  au  article  oi" 


74 

Christian  faith,  though  afterwards  anathematized.  Irenaeus,  bishop  of  Lyons, 
says,  that  it  was  a  tradition  from  St.  John,  that  Christ  was  forty  or  fifty  years 
of  age  when  lie  began  to  preach  ;  and  expressly  affirms,  that  all  the  elders  who 
were  in  Asia  with  St.  John  witnessed  that  he  delivered  it  to  them ;  and  that  they 
who  had  seen  the  other  apostles,  attested  that  they  also  delivered  the  same  tra- 
dition. (Adv.  Hares,  lib.  2.  c.  39.)  Here  we  may  learn  what  we  are  to  think 
of  many  other  traditions,  far  less  authenticated,  and  which,  notwithstanding, 
have  been  imposed  upon  the  faithful  as  of  equal  authority  with  the  Scriptures. 
Clement  of  Alexandria  taught,  that  the  pains  of  hell  are  merely  purgatorial,  and 
are  not  to  be  eternal ;  that  the  angels  discovered  to  the  women  whom  they 
loved  upon  earth,  many  secrets  which  they  ought  not  to  have  revealed.  St. 
Cyprian  thought  that  the  Eucharist  was  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  children, 
and  should  be  administered  to  them  almost  as  soon  as  they  are  born.  St.  Hila- 
ry held,  that  Christ  suffered  no  sense  of  pain  in  his  passion ;  that  baptism  does 
not  cleanse  us  from  all  our  sins ;  that  even  the  Virgin  Mary  must  pass  through 
an  expiatory  fire.  Origen  is  allowed  by  all  to  have  written  many  great  and  ma- 
terial errors.  "  St.  Basil,"  says  the  learned  Jesuit  Petavius,  has  "  mult£  mi-  /Ls 
rifica,  et  si  verum  qurerimus,  parum  Catholica ;"  i.  e.  "  many  wonderful  ftiinget 
and,  in  truth,  by  no  means  Catholic  :"  he  also  seems  to  have  thought  that  the 
torments  of  hell  were  not  to  be  eternal ;  and  St.  Gregory  Naz.  appears  to  have 
been  of  the  same  opinion.  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  taught  this  doctrine  in  the  most 
express  manner.  St.  Ambrose  thought  that  all,  without  exception,  even  St. 
Peter  and  the  blessed  Virgin,  must  pass  through  the  cleansing  fire.  St.  Epi- 
phanius  advanced  many  strange  and  unwarranted  doctrines,  as  may  be  seen  in 
Petavius's  notes  upon  his  writings.  St.  Chrysostom  appears  to  have  believed 
that  the  sin  of  Adam  only  made  us  subject  to  corporal  death :  he  admitted  none 
into  heaven  before  the  general  resurrection,  and  recommended  praying  for  the 
damned  :  as  did  also  St.  Augustin  and  John  Damascen.  The  rash  and  erroneous 
notions  of  St.  Jerom  were  very  numerous,  and  his  acrimonious  vulgarisms  fully 
as  offensive  as  those  of  Luther ;  but  he  offers  as  an  apology,  u  that  he  some- 
times indulged  himself  a  little  in  rhetorical  flourishes."  M  In  morem  declama- 
torumpaululumlusimus."  (In.  Helv.)  St.  Augustin  maintained  the  necessity 
of  infant  communion;  that  children  dying  without  baptism  were  condemned  to 
the  torments  of  hell :  he  also  advanced  other  extraordinary  sentiments,  many  of 
which,  however,  he  afterwards  recalled  in  his  retractations.  No  satisfaction  is 
felt  in  adducing  these  abeirations  of  the  human  mind,  even  in  the  best  of  men; 
and  it  is  done  merely  to  show  upon  what  weak  foundations  every  religious  doc- 
trine rests,  when  once  we  lose  sight  of  revelation.  The  several  passages  from 
the  ancient  fathers,  containing  the  above,  and  many  other  exceptionable  opin- 
ions, are  quoted  at  full  length  in  Daille's  work  above  mentioned. 

Note  (c)  page  25.  See  Notes  at  pages  26  and  35  of  the  Letter  to  the  Roman 
Catholics  of  the  city  of  Worcester. 

Note  (d)  page  35.  Of  the  council  of  Trent,  no  mention  was  at  first  intend- 
ed in  these  Remarks.  To  unbiassed  minds,  the  authority  of  Fra.  Paolo,  Var- 
gas, &c,  was  deemed  amply  sufficient.  The  accusation  of  wilful  and  reflect- 
ed mistatement,  (p.  100.)  only  excites  a  smile.  For  surely,  when  it  was  said, 
in  the  Short  Answer,  "  that  the  whole  business  was  conducted  by  the  haughty 
legate  Crescentio,"  it  could  only  allude  to  the  business  done  during  his  presi- 
dency. It  was  unwise  in  the  Doctor,  by  a  high  wrought  panegyric  on  this 
council,  to  provoke  any  discussion  of  its  merits.  However,  in  case  the  Doc- 
tor should  ever  wish  to  renew  his  inquiries  respecting  this  assembly,  the  5th 
chap,  of  the  4th  book  of  Richer^s  History  of  General  Councils,  is  recommend- 
ed to  his  perusal.  Richer,  though  professedly  a  Roman  Catholic  doctor,  was, 
it  is  acknowledged,  no  friend  to  the  court  of  Rome ;  on  which  account  his 
life  was  attempted,  as  that  of  Paolo  Sarpi  had  been  :  but  he  was  a  man  of  in- 
tegrity and  erudition,  whom  Cardinal  Richelieu  and  his  adherents  could  no 
otherwise  confute,  than  by  endeavouring  to  raise  a  party  against  him,  and  to 
ensnare  him  into  the  hands  of  the  inquisitors.     u  In  the  council  of  Trent,1" 


10 

says  fie,  "  the  apostolic  legates  were  alone  permitted  to  propose,  and  to  pre- 
scribe whatever  was  to  be  done  ;  and  this  was  artfully  contrived  on  purpose  to 
prevent  any  effectual  reformation  of  the  church  and  Roman  court."  He  tell* 
us,  "  that  the  Pope  contrived  that  of  267  prelates  who  assisted  at  the  council, 
at  least  two-thirds  should  be  Italians,  who,  accustomed  to  the  dominion  of  the 
Roman  court,  were  entirely  at  the  beck  of  the  Pontiff,  as  of  their  absolute 
sovereign."  Hence  we  cease  to  wonder  that  Sanctius,  a  doctor  of  Sorbonne, 
who  accompanied  the  Cardinal  of  Lorrain  to  the  council,  should  congratulate 
his  friend  Dr.  D'Espence  for  not  following  him  thither,  as  he  intended.  "  You 
never  had,"  says  he,  "  a  better  inspiration,  than  when  you  determined  not  to 
come  to  Trent.  For,  I  believe  you  would  have  died  at  seeing  the  indignities, 
which  are  here  committed  to  prevent  a  reform.  There  is  not  one  of  us,  who 
would  not  wish,  at  the  hazard  of  his  life,  to  be  back  at  the  Sorbonne.  It  is 
impossible  to  give  you  a  distinct  account  of  all  I  have  seen  and  heard  in  the 
council.''  And  Richer,  continues  to  remark,  that  "  it  is  inbred  in  the  court 
of  Rome  to  regard  her  own  temporal  rights  and  absolute  monarchy,  more  than 
the  patrimony  of  Christ,  and  the  salvation  of  souls ;  that  is,  to  prefer  human 
"-^claim's,  to  the  eternal  law  of  God  :  from  whence  so  many  heresies  and  schisms 
have  arisen,  have  been  propagated,  and  are  daily  more  and  more  increasing." 
"  In  short,"  adds  this  learned  Sorbonist,  "  this  was  the  end  and  aim  of  the 
reform  carrying  on  at  Trent ;  not  to  have  any  real  good  in  view,  but  merely 
to  attend  to  a  certain  outward  show,  and  specious  semblance  ;  while,  in  the 
mean  time,  every  thing  was  accommodated  to  the  private  convenience  and 
splendour  of  the  Roman  court.  Hence  that  magnificent  and  almost  theatri- 
cal manner  of  ornamenting  their  churches,  and  their  altars  ;  their  sacerdotal 
dresses  of  gold  and  silver  tissue — those  frequent,  and  solemn  censures  and  con- 
demnations of  books — those  swarms  of  new  religious  orders,  which  are  daily 
arriving  from  Rome.  By  these,  and  similar  artifices,  the  attention  of  their 
people  is  dexterously  called  off  from  every  thought  and  hope  of  a  reform,  that 
the  princes  and  prelates  of  the  Roman  church  may  still  continue  to  gratify 
every  wish,  and  to  indulge  themselves,  without  control,  in  all  their  accustom- 
ed luxuries  and  enjoyments.''  Can  this  be  the  result  of  those  decrees,  which, 
we  are  told,  "seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost?"  But  more  reflections  are 
unnecessary. — (See  Short  Answer,  p.  64,  k.c.) 

Note  (e)  page  65.  As  some  readers  of  these  Remarks  may  not  possibly  pos- 
sess the  valuable  commentary  of  the  learned  Dr.  Adam  Clark,  I  cannot  for- 
bear soliciting  their  attention  to  a  note  of  his,  at  the  end  of  chap.  xii.  1  Cor. — 
"It  may  be  necessary,"  says  he,  u  to  show,  that  without  the  cup  there  can  be 
no  Eucharist.  With  respect  to  the  bread,  our  Lord  had  simply  said,  "  Take, 
eat,  this  is  my  body  :"  but  concerning  the  cup  he  says,  "  Drink  ye  all  of  this  :" 
for  as  this  pointed  out  the  very  essence  of  the  institution,  viz.  "  the  blood  of 
atonement,"  it  was  necessary  that  each  should  have  a  particular  application 
of  it ;  therefore,  he  says,  "  Drink  ye  all  of  this."  By  this  we  are  taught  that 
the  cup  is  essential  to  the  Lord's  supper  :  so  that  they  who  deny  the  cup  to 
the  people,  sin  against  God's  institution  ;  and  they  who  receive  not  the  cup,  are 
not  partakers  of  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  If  either  could,  without  mor- 
tal prejudice,  be  omitted,  it  might  be  the  bread ;  but  the  cup,  as  pointing  out 
the  blood  poured  out,  i.  e.  the  life,  by  which  alone  this  great  sacrilicial  act  is 
performed,  and  remission  of  sins  procured,  is  absolutely  indispensable.  Ou 
this  ground,  it  is  demonstrable,  that  there  is  not  a  Popish  priest  under  heaven, 
who  denies  the  cup  to  the  people,  (and  they  all  do  this,)  that  can  be  said  to 
celebrate  the  Lord's  supper  at  all ;  nor  is  there  one  of  their  votaries  that  ever 
received  the  holy  sacrament.  How  strange  is  it,  that  the  very  men  who 
plead  so  much  for  the  bare,  literal  meaning  of  "  this  iy  my  body,"  in  the  pre- 
ceding verse,  should  deny  all  meaning  to  "  Drink  ye  all  of  this  cup,"  in  this 
verse!  And,  though  Christ  has,  in  the  most  positive  manner  enjoined  it,  will 
not  permit  one  of  the  laity  to  taste  it !"  "  See,"  he  adds,  u  the  whole  of  this 
argument   at  large,  in  my  discourse  'On  the  Nature  and  Design  of  the  Eu- 


76 

diarist.' "  On  (.his  subject,  it  may  be  useful  just  to  acid,  that  had  the  doctrine 
of  transubstantiation  prevailed  generally  in  the  ancient  church,  when  the 
Ariaa  heresy  arose,  how  readily  might  it  have  been  refuted  by  alleging  the 
practice  of  all  Christendom  in  adoring  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  as  the  Supreme 
God  ?  And  yet  no  such  argument  occurs  in  the  writings  of  the  orthodox 
fathers. 

Note  (/)  page  69.  That  the  Doctor's  theology  is  by  no  means  in  unison 
with  the  system  generally  prevailing  at  this  day  among  Roman  Catholic  di- 
vines in  Europe,  will  readily  appear,  hy  comparing  it  with  Veron's  famous 
rule  of  faith,  to  which  an  appeal  is  commonly  made,  by  modern  apologists  for 
the  Roman  church.  If  this  be  in  reality  the  rule  of  her  failh,  the  writer  of 
these  sheets,  however  he  may  approve  of  it  in  many  points,  solemnly  declares, 
and  in  this  the  Doctor  will  probably  agree  with  him,  that  the  doctrines  which 
he  was  taught  in  early  life  as  articles  of  faith,  were  very  different*  A  few  ex- 
tracts from  this  famous  rule  are  here  presented  to  the  reader,  in  which  he  will 
perceive  such  an  approximation  to  Protestant  principles,  as  with  mutual  can- 
dour might  possibly  be  ripened  into  church  communion.  According  to  this 
rule  we  are  informed,  that  nothing  is  of  faith,  or  necessary  to  be  believed, 
which  was  not  revealed  to  us  through  the  prophets,  apostles,  or  canonical  wri- 
ters :  nothing  is  of  faith,  which  we  know  from  reveiations  made  since  the 
times  of  the  apostles :  no  doctrine  founded  on  the  word  of  God,  or  any  text 
of  Scripture,  which  has  been  variously  expounded  by  the  fathers,  is  a  doctrine 
of  faith  :  no  conclusion,  however  certainly  and  evidently  deduced  from  any 
proposition  of  faith,  is  a  doctrine  of  Catholic  faith  :  not  all  the  practices  even 
of  the  universal  church,  are  sufficient  to  make  any  thing  an  article  of  Christian 
belief:  even  a  general  council  may  err,  in  controversies  which  chiefly  depend 
on  the  information,  and  testimony  of  men  :  although  the  Pope  be  not  infallible 
in  respect  to  his  decrees  of  excommunication,  yet  a  person  who  should  not 
obey  them,  would  sin  mortally,  and  incur  the  excommunication  :  it  is  not 
of  faith,  that  all  our  good  works  are  meritorious  of  eternal  life  :  it  is  not 
of  faith,  that  a  just  man  can  make  satisfaction  for  another :  it  is  not  of 
faith,  that  there  is  a  treasure  in  the  church,  consisting  of  the  satisfaction 
of  the  saints :  it  is  not  of  faith,  that  the  church  has  power  to  grant  such 
indulgences,  by  which  the  punishments  due  either  in  this  life,  or  in  purgatory,  for 
sins  already  remitted,  are  relaxed  :  it  is  not  of  faith  that  the  saints  are  our  me- 
diators, and  not  Christ  alone  :  it  is  not  of  faith  that  the  canonized  saints  are 
really  saints,  or  that  such  persons  ever  existed :  it  is  not  of  faith  that  the  body  of 
Christ  is  contained  in  the  symbols,  as  in  a  place  :  it  is  not  of  faith  that  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  mass  is  of  infinite  value;  that  saints  can  hear  our  prayers,  or  that 
Christians  are  bound  to  pray  to  them ;  that  images,  pictures,  and  relics,  must 
be  venerated  and  honoured.  All  these  opinions  are,  or  were,  universally  taught 
in  the  Gallican  church  ;  and  no  man  was  deemed  a  heretic  for  maintaining  them. 
Now,  let  me  ask,  if  one  Roman  Catholic,  out  of  one  hundred,  would  recognise,  in 
this  exposition  of  his  faith,  the  doctrines  he  has  always  been  taught  to  believe  ? 
Will  Doctor  O'Gallagher  allow  this  exposition  to  be  fair  and  candid  ?  Will  he 
allow,  that  any  person,  who  should  all  his  life  refuse  to  address  any  prayers  to 
saints,  or  ever  to  invoke  the  Virgin  Mary;  who  should  never  strive  to  gain  in- 
dulgences, plenary  or  partial ;  who  should  withhold  every  kind  of  veneration  to 
images  and  relics  ;  who  should  never  pray  for,  nor  assist  at  prayers  for  the  dead  ; 
who  should  deny  that  the  saints  are  our  mediators,  &c,  would  such  a  person,  I 
ask,  be  considered  as  an  orthodox  Roman  Catholic?  This  argument  might  be 
carried  much  further,  and  illustrated  in  many  other  instances,  so  as  to  show  that 
the  boasted  infallibility  of  the  Roman  church,  is  of  little  service  in  settling  either 
the  principles  or  practices  of  her  adherents. 


F  INIS. 


fOf' 


9R£ 


&tiSKF 


mi  'xm  am 


